Is Earth experience record heat? Absolutely not

[adroit]

This is worth the read:

Understanding adjustments to temperature data

[dantes]

It’s a serious accusation and they’re not always made by people who are the most honest. You should be careful. The right has politicized this issue considerably. There’s a lot of money at stake.

[altair1013]

One of the issues is that past temperatures are always seem to be adjusted in the downward direction. Rarely if ever in the upward direction. It has to fit the narrative.

[adroit]

@altair1013

However, since 1998, little warming has occurred while carbon dioxide emissions continue to increase.

This is straight up false:

Global Surface Temperature | NASA Global Climate Change

[adroit]

@altair1013

One of the issues is that past temperatures are always seem to be adjusted in the downward direction. Rarely if ever in the upward direction. It has to fit the narrative.

Without saying ridiculous things like “it has to fit the narrative”, try actually reading about it from someone who is one of the leading analysts on the subject. Especially when that person is respected and given a platform by a skeptic like Judith Curry.

[altair1013]

NOAA creates the warming trend by altering the data. The NOAA raw data shows no warming over the past century

[adroit]

@altair1013

NOAA creates the warming trend by altering the data. The NOAA raw data shows no warming over the past century

Again, don’t bother actually commenting on the subject if you aren’t even curious enough to get educated about what goes in to the process and the reasons behind it.

[Samm]

@Jezcoe

At current emmisions we are between five to ten generations from the earth having the amount of carbon in the atmosphere as 65 million years ago.

Meh. We are all going to die in 12 years anyway.

[lessright]

Thanks for that.

[Samm]

@Snow96

So now say pre 1960’s only data from ground level and ice core and (I’m told) core samples of dirt show a temperature of x. And today we have temp data from from ground level, and satalites taking readings at all levels of the atmosphere giving a temp of Y. Isn’t that comparing apples to oranges to determine if we are hotter (on average) today than say 100 years ago?

Yes.

…

[Samm]

@Jezcoe

@Snow96

@Jezcoe

There are multiple data sets from multiple sources that all show the exact same thing.

What multiple sources are available from 1918? What available sources are available from 2,000 years ago? Please and thank you.

Ice cores… tree rings… etc.

Ice cores dating back beyond about 1000 years come from only two locations … Antarctica and Greenland … and at best, they provide one temperature approximation per year per location. Tree ring data is notoriously poor because numerous factors besides temperature affect tree growth. There is a very tenuous correlation between old proxy temperatures and modern precision measurements.

[Samm]

@Jezcoe

@lessright

It could be. I suppose there’s no way to know without further analysis of the data and collection tools.

My concern with your analysis is that one might debunk data simply because we switched from analogue (mercury) to digital.

That’s a lot of “scientific” data thrown out and not just science about the climate.

You do make a good point however. The differences in tools and locations can certainly skew the data.

The data sets get corrected for that.

Code for “manipulated to fit expectations.”

[Samm]

@Borgia_dude

@altair1013

@dantes

That’s just straight up not true and the claim is completely unsupported.

Why do you like that line?

The highest temperature ever reported was 136 degrees Fahrenheit in Libya in 1922. The record high temperature for the United States was 134 degrees Fahrenheit in Death Valley, California, in 1913. Fossil fuel emissions in 1913 and 1922 were negligible compared to today.

Ok. It seems you are having trouble with the definition of “Global” in “Global Warming”.

Do Greenland and Antarctica represent global? Because that’s where the most accurate proxy temperature data comes from.

[Samson_Corwell]

@Samm

@Jezcoe

@lessright

It could be. I suppose there’s no way to know without further analysis of the data and collection tools.

My concern with your analysis is that one might debunk data simply because we switched from analogue (mercury) to digital.

That’s a lot of “scientific” data thrown out and not just science about the climate.

You do make a good point however. The differences in tools and locations can certainly skew the data.

The data sets get corrected for that.

Code for “manipulated to fit expectations.”

Statistics is data manipulation!

[altair1013]

@adroit

Again, don’t bother actually commenting on the subject if you aren’t even curious enough to get educated about what goes in to the process and the reasons behind it.

Okay. If you say so.

[Axxowiz]

Cortez said today maybe we should stop having children because of it

[Samm]

@Samson_Corwell

@Samm

@Jezcoe

@lessright

It could be. I suppose there’s no way to know without further analysis of the data and collection tools.

My concern with your analysis is that one might debunk data simply because we switched from analogue (mercury) to digital.

That’s a lot of “scientific” data thrown out and not just science about the climate.

You do make a good point however. The differences in tools and locations can certainly skew the data.

The data sets get corrected for that.

Code for “manipulated to fit expectations.”

Statistics is data manipulation!

Yes, but the question is, who is manipulating the manipulators?

[Samm]

@Axxowiz

Cortez said today maybe we should stop having children because of it

Well, she certainly should, but not for that reason.

[dantes]

There are dozens or maybe hundreds of proxy records from all over the planet unless you’re looking for records closer to hundreds of thousands of years, which isn’t really necessary here.

[Jezcoe]

@Samm

@Samson_Corwell

@Samm

@Jezcoe

@lessright

It could be. I suppose there’s no way to know without further analysis of the data and collection tools.

My concern with your analysis is that one might debunk data simply because we switched from analogue (mercury) to digital.

That’s a lot of “scientific” data thrown out and not just science about the climate.

You do make a good point however. The differences in tools and locations can certainly skew the data.

The data sets get corrected for that.

Code for “manipulated to fit expectations.”

Statistics is data manipulation!

Yes, but the question is, who is manipulating the manipulators?

Who do you think it is?