Historical records miss a fifth of global warming: NASA

July 22, 2016 by Carol Rasmussen, NASA
Difficulties in making weather measurements in the Arctic have led to underrepresentation of this rapidly warming area in historic temperature records. Credit: British Columbia Ministry of Transport

A new NASA-led study finds that almost one-fifth of the global warming that has occurred in the past 150 years has been missed by historical records due to quirks in how global temperatures were recorded. The study explains why projections of future climate based solely on historical records estimate lower rates of warming than predictions from climate models.

The study applied the quirks in the historical records to climate model output and then performed the same calculations on both the models and the observations to make the first true apples-to-apples comparison of warming rates. With this modification, the models and observations largely agree on expected near-term global warming. The results were published in the journal Nature Climate Change. Mark Richardson of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California, is the lead author.

The Arctic is warming faster than the rest of Earth, but there are fewer historic temperature readings from there than from lower latitudes because it is so inaccessible. A data set with fewer Arctic temperature measurements naturally shows less warming than a climate model that fully represents the Arctic.

Because it isn't possible to add more measurements from the past, the researchers instead set up the climate models to mimic the limited coverage in the historical records.

The new study also accounted for two other issues. First, the historical data mix air and water temperatures, whereas model results refer to air temperatures only. This quirk also skews the historical record toward the cool side, because water warms less than air. The final issue is that there was considerably more Arctic sea ice when temperature records began in the 1860s, and early observers recorded air temperatures over nearby land areas for the sea-ice-covered regions. As the ice melted, later observers switched to instead. That also pushed down the reported temperature change.

Scientists have known about these quirks for some time, but this is the first study to calculate their impact. "They're quite small on their own, but they add up in the same direction," Richardson said. "We were surprised that they added up to such a big effect."

These quirks hide around 19 percent of global air-temperature warming since the 1860s. That's enough that calculations generated from historical records alone were cooler than about 90 percent of the results from the that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) uses for its authoritative assessment reports. In the apples-to-apples comparison, the historical temperature calculation was close to the middle of the range of calculations from the IPCC's suite of models.

Any research that compares modeled and observed long-term temperature records could suffer from the same problems, Richardson said. "Researchers should be clear about how they use temperature records, to make sure that comparisons are fair. It had seemed like real-world data hinted that future would be a bit less than models said. This mostly disappears in a fair comparison."

NASA uses the vantage point of space to increase our understanding of our home planet, improve lives and safeguard our future. NASA develops new ways to observe and study Earth's interconnected natural systems with long-term data records. The agency freely shares this unique knowledge and works with institutions around the world to gain new insights into how our planet is changing.

Explore further: 2016 climate trends continue to break records

More information: Mark Richardson et al. Reconciled climate response estimates from climate models and the energy budget of Earth, Nature Climate Change (2016). DOI: 10.1038/nclimate3066

Related Stories

2016 climate trends continue to break records

July 19, 2016

Two key climate change indicators—global surface temperatures and Arctic sea ice extent—have broken numerous records through the first half of 2016, according to NASA analyses of ground-based observations and satellite ...

Recommended for you

Physicists discover new class of pentaquarks

March 26, 2019

Tomasz Skwarnicki, professor of physics in the College of Arts and Sciences at Syracuse University, has uncovered new information about a class of particles called pentaquarks. His findings could lead to a new understanding ...

Study finds people who feed birds impact conservation

March 26, 2019

People in many parts of the world feed birds in their backyards, often due to a desire to help wildlife or to connect with nature. In the United States alone, over 57 million households in the feed backyard birds, spending ...

Matter waves and quantum splinters

March 25, 2019

Physicists in the United States, Austria and Brazil have shown that shaking ultracold Bose-Einstein condensates (BECs) can cause them to either divide into uniform segments or shatter into unpredictable splinters, depending ...

61 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Eikka
2.4 / 5 (21) Jul 22, 2016
So let me get this straight - historical records were a fifth on the cool side, hiding the warming up until temperature measurement got better and more consistent in modern times.

It had seemed like real-world data hinted that future global warming would be a bit less than models said. This mostly disappears in a fair comparison."


The climate models are more or less all built to replicate the Mann's hockey stick of the late 90's, or some variant thereof, which assumes the temperatures were lower in the past to make the graph rise up so dramatically.

If you follow the hockey stick, you get doomsday predictions. If you follow a shallower ramp, you get a slower increase in temps for the future. The vast majority of the climate predictions follow the doomsday ramp and have overshot actual measured temperatures for a good 10-15 years now.

That can't be overlooked, unless NASA is claiming the -modern- temperature records are on the low side.
Ultron
1.5 / 5 (17) Jul 22, 2016
The climate models are more or less all built to replicate the Mann's hockey stick
That suggests the models were designed with a specific outcome in mind - I wonder if Eikka can provide evidence that the models were designed to provide a result. I don't know how much data it is going to take to silence deniers. 14 straight months of record temps - and of the 15 warmest years on record - 14 have occurred in the 21st Century (in the past 15 years).

http://renewecono...ds-51214


Actually I dont believe "climate scientists" data since it was published that they destroyed historical raw data:
https://cei.org/n...ate-data

The global temperature is probably increasing due to human activity, but I think that at the same time it is also true that climate alarmist are tampering data and exagerrating the warming.
Eikka
1.8 / 5 (15) Jul 22, 2016
That suggests the models were designed with a specific outcome in mind


Well, given the data they have, there's a tendency of tossing out models that don't replicate the "known" climate history as invalid. There's no need for any conspiracy or any deliberate attempt to decieve - simply blind trust that the data you have is accurate and therefore the models that predict a shallower trend must be wrong because they don't replicate the steep climb of temperatures in the late 20th century.

14 straight months of record temps - and of the 15 warmest years on record - 14 have occurred in the 21st Century (in the past 15 years)


That's an entirely different point, not relevant to this question which is about the hockey stick "step" that appeared in the temperature record around 1998, which the models try to explain.
Eikka
1.8 / 5 (15) Jul 22, 2016
Basically, the suppressed temperature rise before the hockey stick curve can be explained away by assuming that the GHG emissions forcing and the positive feedback on the climate system is stronger than it actually is, and it's held back by some other effect during the historical record such as sulfur emissions and particulates from volcanoes or some sea oscillation etc. etc. until finally in the late 20th century this negative force is lifted and the temperatures started to soar.

There's a myriad of parameters to fix and tweak to get the "right" result.

So this is what the models do, and predict the continued soaring temperatures in the 21st century. You can now cue in the early 00's panic about runaway climate change - which never happened and nearly all the models overshot the actual temperature record by a wide margin 15 years later.

That doesn't mean the temperature isn't increasing - it's just increasing much slower than predicted from the faulty historical data.
Shootist
1.8 / 5 (16) Jul 22, 2016
Obama's NASA? Reporting on politically sensitive science? Really? LOLOL
Eikka
1.9 / 5 (13) Jul 22, 2016
It's especially tricky if there actually is some sort of El Nino or other effect going on, such as the "little ice age" of the 70's when temperatures were going down, because it's easy to over-emphasize such known effects within the uncertainty of their data to get the models to agree with what you think is going on.

A nip here and a tuck there - all within the margins of uncertainty for the parameters you're trying to include for completeness - and you can get the model to show anything you want. So how do you choose the parameters?

Of course you don't choose them, you run a monte carlo simulation and let the random variation give you a "likely outcome", among which are results that agree with the temperature history, so you publicize those results. and leave the rest as "error bars"

But when what you thought was going on wasn't really, the right answers you think you had simply pushed the error the other way.
Eikka
2 / 5 (12) Jul 22, 2016
So please link us to the not faulty historical data - so that we can all see the true historical data that you have access to.


This very article is talking about it! Please ask NASA.

I'm simply talking about what it means in practice: to say that the historical data has omitted 20% of the warming is in other words saying that the past was warmer than we thought it was, and therefore the trend from past to future through today must be shallower than predicted.

If you have a sequence 0,1,2,4 you would predict the next number is 8 by observing a doubling trend
If you have a sequence 1,2,3,4 you would predict the next number is 5

That's the point. 8 is what we predicted, 5 is what we got. Not exatly as dramatic as that, but in principle the same.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (20) Jul 22, 2016
The climate models are more or less all built to replicate the Mann's hockey stick of the late 90's, or some variant thereof, which assumes the temperatures were lower in the past to make the graph rise up so dramatically.
Sometimes you say the most bizarre things. Shake your head

If you follow the hockey stick, you get doomsday predictionsIf you follow a shallower ramp, you get a slower increase in temps for the future. The vast majority of the climate predictions follow the doomsday ramp and have overshot actual measured temperatures for a good 10-15 years now.That can't be overlooked, unless NASA is claiming the -modern- temperature records are on the low side.
You exaggerate and obscure. (http://www.scient...or-not/)
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (14) Jul 22, 2016
Well, given the data they have, there's a tendency of tossing out models that don't replicate the "known" climate history as invalid. There's no need for any conspiracy or any deliberate attempt to decieve - simply blind trust that the data you have is accurate and therefore the models that predict a shallower trend must be wrong because they don't replicate the steep climb of temperatures in the late 20th century.
So not deliberate deceit, rather incompetence?

Scientists, like all other people, can be blinded by confirmation bias, In spite of that, if a scientist were to get consistently different results using proxy or other data, it would not result in his 'throwing it out", and only someone uneducated in scientific theory would say such a thing. It is exactly that different result that makes careers. Stop thinking conspiracy, it is blinding you.
antigoracle
1.9 / 5 (14) Jul 22, 2016
OH, the dilemma of the AGW Cult?
Luckily, all these temperatures are always wrong in their favour. Even the ARGO data, confirmed as the Gold Standard in ocean temperature, was wrong.

If reality defies your dogma of doom and gloom, then, "fix" reality.
philstacy9
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 22, 2016
Anthropogenic is humans rewriting history as propaganda.

http://www.breitb...uch-ice/
Jarrod1937
3.5 / 5 (16) Jul 22, 2016


Well, given the data they have, there's a tendency of tossing out models that don't replicate the "known" climate history as invalid. There's no need for any conspiracy or any deliberate attempt to decieve - simply blind trust that the data you have is accurate and therefore the models that predict a shallower trend must be wrong because they don't replicate the steep climb of temperatures in the late 20th century.


Do you know anything about system modeling? Why would you keep using a model if it does not match your historical data? You possibly can continue using that model, altering it over time to properly refine it, but it was be useless to use it as is. Likewise, the data you speak of has been collected by multiple, separate, entities over time. It really would be a conspiracy for it to incorrect in the manner you're alleging. There are validations one can do to at least see if their data is in the ballpark. A little research would go a long way for you.
howhot3
4.3 / 5 (11) Jul 22, 2016
Climate deniers are such cowards! The tremble at the site of a little math. If the denier goon squad bothered to read the article on nature climate, they would instantly shut up. What climate scientist at JPL found was that climate models when run backwards would tend to show that temps in the past should be warmer. This 15% correction fixes that. Meaning the climate models where right all along! Chew on that big one @antigoracle.

So the hockey stick is safe. It may infact be even steaper than that, and we certainly will see the 2C change globally by 2030, 3C by 2050 about certainly 4C-8C by 2100 if mankind continues on it's pace of fossil fuel consumption. We are just at the very beginning of where temps will be in the future.

howhot3
4.6 / 5 (11) Jul 22, 2016
Here, let me fix that republican anti-climate toilet swill koolaid you deniers all drank. Here from the abstract are the concluding remarks;

"Correcting for these biases and accounting for wider uncertainties in radiative forcing based on recent evidence, we infer an observation-based best estimate for TCR of 1.66 °C, with a 5–95% range of 1.0–3.3 °C, consistent with the climate models considered in the IPCC 5th Assessment Report."

As climate induces more stress on crops, plants, forests, sea plants and coral where their genetic design makes them incapable of handling the extreme heat wave of summer or the shortened winters of dormancy, species extinctions are highly probable,


antigoracle
1.8 / 5 (10) Jul 22, 2016
Climate deniers are such cowards!.........Chew on that big one

Whoa!!!, there howshat. I'm sure you get all excited when your man crush, Al, says those words to you brave boy, but repeating them to me, is just fucking sick.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.9 / 5 (15) Jul 22, 2016
There are two sides of this AGW coin, but IMO there is a more pressing need to convince all humans to stop polluting the bodies of water on which we and other life forms of Earth depend for life sustenance. It may get hot or it may get cold, but we cannot live without drinkable water.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (18) Jul 22, 2016
As climate induces more stress on crops, plants, forests, sea plants and coral where their genetic design makes them incapable of handling the extreme heat wave of summer or the shortened winters of dormancy, species extinctions are highly probable,
- how hot

Extinctions have occurred throughout the past billion years and is still ongoing even without AGW. It was happening even BEFORE the advent of mankind, but there is a little thing called "EVOLUTION" and adaptation that changes DNA to fit the conditions under which Earth creatures are forced to live under. Who says it can't happen to humans too.

Out of 8 billion people in the world, a good amount should evolve, however slowly, and adapt to conditions that are forced upon them.
Most people forget that Saudi Arabia and other OPEC desert countries were once tropical with lush vegetation for millions of years. That's where all the oil came from. And now it's dry desert, The climate had changed but not because of man
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (17) Jul 22, 2016
China has some of the worst GHG emissions where the people are forced to wear masks to avoid breathing in particles. And yet, I haven't even once read any AGW accusations from anyone on Physorg against the Chinese government and Chinese industry that are generating the pollution in the air and is killing its people. Perhaps the Chinese government has decided that they have a surplus of people and they can afford to be rid of several hundreds of millions?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (15) Jul 22, 2016
A million pages on a search engine doesn't refute the fact that China is still one of the worst polluters. Even now, people in China are dying of emphysema and lung cancer, but in Physorg, you agwites condemn those in the West who are doing their best to diminish air pollution through technology and personal habits.
It seems more like a ruse to suck money out of western countries to line the pockets of AGW elites.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (15) Jul 22, 2016
BTW, I notice that there were no comments in the link you provided. Was there no interest in Chinese pollution? And the glass company cited is only one of many thousands of industrial polluters. But thanks for the link anyway.
howhot3
4.6 / 5 (11) Jul 22, 2016
@Antigoracle, Surveillance and the rest of you goon squad dim bulb excuses for a human. You don't know jack about the climate, how the atmosphere works, how weather is created or anything close to a theory that stands on sold facts. In fact your so damn gullible you bought into all of this oil paid for fox news crap and regurgitate it here like it something your proud of.

How deep is this crap;
people in China are dying of emphysema and lung cancer,
Yeap they sure are in polluted areas but has nothing to do with climate or mankind's plight with AGW butt head. Instead of following the rightwing man-crush Trumpet parade on climate change, why don't you go out and feel the temps for yourself as this massive heat dome builds over the central US breaking records in nearly all locations. Sure 90, 98, 101, 105, 110 doesn't feel too bad. But add 10 degrees to that as something to expect for your future!

Chew on that big one denier goons.
howhot3
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 22, 2016
Well it's so true. Climate deniers are cowards! They have to lie because they fear and tremble at at the loss of profit by big oil/coal/gas companies having to comply with global CO2 reduction regulations. You pathetic pieces of crap. Lets be honest and admit it's profit for these companies you worry about, not the plight of mankind. Your a coward if you don't admit it AGW deniers.

kochevnik
1 / 5 (7) Jul 23, 2016
Earth is warming, along with the solar system. Of course zionists want a new tax on respiration as a fallback for their exclusive counterfeiting license and their current attempts to ignite WWIII
ExNuke
1 / 5 (11) Jul 23, 2016
What some or most Repressives miss is that a lot of us agree that the climate is changing we just don't agree that it is all the fault of the US and that reducing us to living in caves and grubbing for roots is going to do a damn thing about it. the money spent on useless attempts to "control" the climate appear to only be wasted attempts to protect a bunch of hideously rich peoples investment in over priced coastal real estate. The money would be better spent in finding ways to adapt to something that is totally beyond the control of the human race. No one with the brains of a fruit fly believes that the rest of the world is going to shut down development because Bloomberg stands to lose a couple of billion in underwater real estate. Do humans have an effect? Of course they do, so do earth worms, maybe we should kill all the worms to save the polar bears. Or kill all the polar bears to save the earth worms. It's hard to keep up with the crisis of the moment.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (10) Jul 23, 2016
global warming that has occurred in the past 150 years has been missed by historical records due to quirks in how global temperatures were recorded.

"Quirks" they say. And as they do, if the data doesn't fit, change the data.
leetennant
5 / 5 (11) Jul 23, 2016
What some or most Repressives miss is that a lot of us agree that the climate is changing we just don't agree that it is all the fault of the US and that reducing us to living in caves and grubbing for roots is going to do a damn thing about it. the money spent on useless attempts to "control" the climate appear to only be wasted attempts to protect a bunch of hideously rich peoples investment in over priced coastal real estate. The money would be better spent in finding ways to adapt to something that is totally beyond the control of the human race. No one with the brains of a fruit fly believes that the rest of the world is going to shut down development because Bloomberg stands to lose a couple of billion in underwater real estate.


I think this breaks some sort of strawman record
antigoracle
1 / 5 (10) Jul 23, 2016
The temperature rises faster than previously predicted from the historical data.

LMAO
The "Retard of the month" with 100% hindsight can predict the past.
gkam
1.6 / 5 (14) Jul 23, 2016
anti, why are you so nasty?

Can you not make some pathetic point without the offensiveness?
antigoracle
1 / 5 (10) Jul 23, 2016
He is talking to Niels Bohr.

There you go, predicting the past again.

LOL.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (11) Jul 23, 2016
AGW Cult prophesy is right, reality is wrong.
http://notrickszo...Gg7.dpbs
HeloMenelo
4.2 / 5 (10) Jul 23, 2016
He is talking to Niels Bohr.

There you go, predicting the past again.

LOL.


There you go, being dumb again
Pumastar
3.9 / 5 (14) Jul 23, 2016
looks like this goracle guy really does sit in front of his pc 24/7 like a monkey
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (10) Jul 23, 2016
but I think that at the same time it is also true that climate alarmist are tampering data and exagerrating the warming
@Ultron
1- re: your first post
https://www.feder...ings-for

2- re: your quote above
which nation?
all of them?

it would suggest that there is a global conspiracy between tens of thousands of scientists coming from cultures that can't even agree on the tastiness of bacon

... and you think this conspiracy does what?

if it's to:
get rich- they're failing miserably

get famous - again, epic fail. most people can't name any climate scientist

get laid - need i really comment on that one?

*
so what would be the benefit or reasoning for the conspiracy?
more to the point: where is the evidence of the conspiracy?
where is the proof of conspiracy?
kochevnik
1 / 5 (7) Jul 23, 2016
where is the proof of conspiracy?
On the Polish and Romanian borders and the Black Sea. I mean you government leaves 50 nuclear missiles in the hands of Turkish revolutionaries and all you have is incredible "what me worry?" attitude

Bohr was an authoritative bully, who rammed the Copenhagen Interpretation as dogma until disproved decades later. Reminiscent of the popcorn gallery in this comment section
del2
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 23, 2016
where is the proof of conspiracy?
On the Polish and Romanian borders and the Black Sea. I mean you government leaves 50 nuclear missiles in the hands of Turkish revolutionaries and all you have is incredible "what me worry?" attitude

Bohr was an authoritative bully, who rammed the Copenhagen Interpretation as dogma until disproved decades later. Reminiscent of the popcorn gallery in this comment section

Cap'n S was asking for evidence of a conspiracy regarding AGW. Your examples do not address the question and are off-topic.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (7) Jul 24, 2016
dustywells
1 / 5 (7) Jul 24, 2016
ExNuke
Don't you think it would be good for Beijing to cut their pollution...
Sure it would. But China won't unless we start competing with their manufacturing base; which is something that we can not do because manufacturing locally with environmental protection in place prices our products out of competition. China can always sell a finished product to us for less than we would pay for materials and labor because they don't care about pollution.

Has anyone done a study on how Global Warming rhetoric and Globalization of trade are in an apparent/obvious lockstep? It seems that the more we worry about Climate Change, the more goods we purchase from the Far East and countries with little pollution control because our own pollution control legislation becomes more stringent and too costly for our factories.

Bottom line: We are paying China to keep polluting because our laws restrain us from manufacturing and buying our own goods.
dustywells
1 / 5 (10) Jul 24, 2016
so what would be the benefit or reasoning for the conspiracy?

Government funding for their company or institution.
more to the point: where is the evidence of the conspiracy?

Cherry picking, manipulating and massaging input data to arrive at a predetermined result.

bleekie
1 / 5 (9) Jul 24, 2016
Adjusting the data has always been the best way to show warming.
LifeBasedLogic
Jul 24, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (7) Jul 24, 2016
Say whatever you like about the AGW Cult, but you got to admire their tenacity. After years of denying the globull warming pause, they were able to cook up 66 pal-reviewed "studies" to explain it away and even vindicated their climate models...er..excuse me..CO2 filled crystal balls, for missing it. http://phys.org/n...ed.html. And, then they topped it off, with one of their most practiced tricks. by making it disappear altogether. I know some would not be impressed, since all they needed was to fool the Chicken Little retards, but the audacity to waste millions of your tax dollars doing it, must be recognized.
So, they have cooked the land temperatures, followed by the oceans and now the Arctic some more. But now that the El Nino is over and the Pacific is cooling, they will have to go cooking some more and my bet is that they will suddenly discover that our maps are wrong and that the Arctic is actually bigger.
LifeBasedLogic
Jul 24, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
rrrander
1 / 5 (10) Jul 25, 2016
NASA's decline began when they stopped looking up and started looking down, where the money was.
rrrander
1 / 5 (10) Jul 25, 2016
dustywells
Cherry picking, manipulating and massaging input data to arrive at a predetermined result.
Which is of course exactly what deniers do on a regular basis. The facts are that the climate is warming, and the primary driver of that warming is loading the atmosphere with ghg. No amount of insult throwing, and childishness will change those facts. Deniers can never produce evidence to the contrary.


Funny how temperatures rise when the ice ages decline. Wait till the decline in temps starts and you can't blame it on human activity.
LifeBasedLogic
Jul 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Jul 25, 2016
Government funding ...
@dustybrain
for every nation and culture, eh?
you do know things like this can be actually checked, right?
& what about the org's that don't get gov't funding? there is a sh*tload of private funding, you know...

but ignoring that... you do know that the bulk of the funding doesn't go towards the physics findings you find so conspiratorial, right?

it goes towards energy efficiency and renewable energy research &/or towards adaptation and mitigation programs. the REDD-plus programs (carbon etc that most claim is conspiratorial) gets only 15% of the total funding (as of right now), which is not a lot, considering your claims
https://drive.goo...bVk/view

Cherry picking, manipulating and massaging input data to arrive at a predetermined result
you mean like your comments?

1- you've made a false claim with no proof/evidence

2- no evidence means bullsh*t or religion, not science
Captain Stumpy
Jul 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Jul 25, 2016
Government funding for their company or institution
@dustybrain
for the record, any and all gov't funds used for public or research is tracked and publicly accessible from the GAO (govt accountability office) for everyone to see
it's the law
[ Figure 1: Reported Federal Climate Change Funding by Category, 1993-2014 ]
http://www.gao.go..._summary

please note that the science is getting minimal funding compared to the technology research

learning how to research is important when you want to make claims, especially if you make said claims on a science site where people who are familiar with or well versed in science actually frequent... or on PO, where they used to frequent until the trolls and pseudoscience idiots took over

there are some of us who still know how to find scientific or other facts and data though
gkam
1 / 5 (10) Jul 25, 2016
"a claim without evidence is equivalent to used toilet paper"
-------------------------------------------------

And an opinion without an identity is even more worthless.
googol
3.7 / 5 (9) Jul 25, 2016
Please consider the simple explanation that recent warming has been so great that the historical records being a fifth warmer would not significantly alter the evaluation of anthropogenic global warming.

2016 will likely be another record year, blowing away the previous record hot year of 2015, which itself broke the record temperatures of 2014.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (7) Jul 25, 2016
Mark Richardson of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California, is the lead author.

Remember that totally debunked 97% consensus lie? Guess who helped Cook, cook that up?
https://notalotof...ebunked/
LOL.
The "master" chefs of the AGW Cult, burning BILLIONS of your tax dollars. How else could you produce man made globull warming.
LifeBasedLogic
Jul 26, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
LifeBasedLogic
Jul 26, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
4.1 / 5 (9) Jul 26, 2016
@Eikka
The climate models are more or less all built to replicate the Mann's hockey stick
Wrong.

Climate models are built from physics. If you'd ever actually investigated their source code you'd know that. For example, they have radiation code, which deals with how light interacts with matter; they have hydrocode, which deals with how fluids like air and water circulate; they have thermocode, which calls the radiation code and the hydrocode to deal with heat flow by convection.

The code is public. You can investigate it for yourself. Here it is: http://www.giss.n.../modelE/ You can view the code, download the code and compile it for yourself (if you've got enough computer, which is surprisingly little; you'd need to run it for a thousand years to get the results they do, but code is code).

That you never have means you don't want to know the truth.

You're just another denier, @Eikka.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Jul 26, 2016
@Surveillance
I haven't even once read any AGW accusations from anyone on Physorg against the Chinese government and Chinese industry that are generating the pollution
I have been saying that the Chinese should go nuclear instead of building more coal plants consistently since I arrived here, and for a long time before that.

You must be new.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Jul 26, 2016
@rrander
Wait till the decline in temps starts and you can't blame it on human activity.
In about 35,000 years.

You ought to get out of the basement more often.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Jul 26, 2016
And circling back around to the article, this is significant. By being able to show not just that records were not representative, but the exact manner in which they introduced errors and also by being able to retrodict the correct temperatures and show that they are within the limits of the uncertainty of the measurements, a very solid case has been made. That the appropriate corrections for these problems give the results we've been getting from geophysics models confirms them yet again.

The hits just keep on comin'. The Gish Gallop becomes more frantic as the gaps narrow.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (6) Jul 26, 2016
@LBL
You do not have the skills to realise what an idiot you are.

realise? You mean realize?

See http://grammarist...realize/

The "Retard of the month" is going for "Retard of the year"
Poor retard won't get someone with a brain to even read and explain the link it provided.
gkam
1 / 5 (9) Jul 26, 2016
anti, please give up your inherent nastiness.

What happened to you to make you this way?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (9) Jul 26, 2016
too funny! ROTFLMFAO
You a have already attempted to refute that, Life is Most Important in Life
@dave-the-ILLOGICAL-TROLL
1- this is a claim without evidence, therefore any claim that refutes said claim is every bit as authoritative and valid

2- if life is defined by non-existence and death at either end of the spectrum, then life can't be most important because the very ends of the spectrum are the defining factors, therefore death or nonexistence must be more important than life as it defines the parameters for instinct in biology

3- philosophy (your crap above) is not science:
it is subjective to the individual, and therefore can't be valid.

it's not science. it's religion. IOW- crap.
peddle con folk and your stupidity elsewhere

4- truth is entirely subjective to the culture and beliefs of an individual and is subjective
if you can't demonstrate "truth" per the scientific method, it's crap
LOL
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (8) Jul 26, 2016
thanks for quoting this PHys1... i missed it
too busy laughing, i guess... but to address antiG's post yet again:
realise? You mean realize?
See http://grammarist...realize/
ROTFLMFAO
no, i meant what i wrote

you do realise that you just debunked your own troll bait with your own link, right?

apparently you *still* can't read!

from your link
Realise and realize are different spellings of the same word
it's even the very first sentence! LOL
http://grammarist...realize/

man... it is funny!

but just in case someone reads this to you, here is more for you to digest:
http://www.thefre.../realise

Also, especially British, realise
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/realise

http://www.oxford...=realise

google works - you should try it sometime

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.