NASA's Rubber Ruler: An Update

[Mike_Jones]

.
Question. How can a bonafide scientist write down a temperature number on a sheet of paper, and then report years later that he wrote down a different number?

NASA's Rubber Ruler: An Update

January 1, 2018
The NASA/GISS temperature record is not actually a record of recorded temperatures.  It is simply the most recent version of NASA's adjustments to older adjustments.  It is not thermometer readings.  It is models all the way down.

In 2012, I wrote an American Thinker article on the status of global warming at the time.  I used the latest available NASA/GISS data to do that analysis, which was the version NASA had on its website on April 30, 2012 (Land-Ocean Temperature Index [LOTI]).

At that time, the data from 1880 through 2011 showed a warming trend of 0.59 degrees Celsius per century.

What is that warming trend using the latest data from NASA's website (December 30, 2017), using those same exact years (1880-2011)?  The answer is 0.66 degrees Celcius.
…...
I know that NASA adjusted the temperature record in a way that accelerated the warming trend.  What I don't know for sure is how much of the warming trend is due solely to such adjustments.  One peer-reviewed study says "nearly all" of the warming is fabricated.

I would sure like to look at the science of global warming.  But without physical observations one can trust, how does one do that?  It is all one big "trust us."  But that is not science.  The "temperature record" is not a record of thermometer readings.  It is a summary of what government-funded people with science degrees think is OK for us to see.

 

[test_article]

"We decide, you swallow."

 

[GromsDad]

<img class="spotlight" alt="Image may contain: text" src="https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/26165972_1701996703209884_7779317348077341658_n.jpg?oh=a64ff3d5deb3281c6f6ce62e69a13d19&amp;oe=5AC426F4" style="width: 450px; height: 600px;" aria-busy="true">

 

[One-Off]

<img class="spotlight" alt="Image may contain: text" src="https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/26165972_1701996703209884_7779317348077341658_n.jpg?oh=a64ff3d5deb3281c6f6ce62e69a13d19&amp;oe=5AC426F4" style="width: 450px; height: 600px;" aria-busy="true">

Winter in California-

 

[njsurfer42]

gromsdad-typical "it's cold/just snowed where i am so climate change is fake" bs.

 

[Surfdog]

La Nina

Dry in the west.

Cold and snowy in the mid-west and E. coast.

Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[GromsDad]

gromsdad-typical "it's cold/just snowed where i am so climate change is fake" bs.

Meanwhile a hot day in July is proof that it’s real to the left.

 

[mahoa]

gromsdad-typical "it's cold/just snowed where i am so climate change is fake" bs.

Meanwhile a hot day in July is proof that it’s real to the left.

Meh.

More like, we’re running out of glaciers in Glacier National Park. Or, that 11 mile wide crack that recently opened up down in Antarctica.

More carbon in the air = higher temps. Always has been that way, always will be.

Why is this a partisan issue? That is the part that doesn’t make sense to me...

 

[Sharkbiscuit]

gromsdad-typical "it's cold/just snowed where i am so climate change is fake" bs.

Meanwhile a hot day in July is proof that it’s real to the left.

Meh.

More like, we’re running out of glaciers in Glacier National Park. Or, that 11 mile wide crack that recently opened up down in Antarctica.

More carbon in the air = higher temps. Always has been that way, always will be.

Why is this a partisan issue? That is the part that doesn’t make sense to me...

The fact that carbon dioxide is used in photosynthesis negates any effect it has as a greenhouse gas, and there are worse greenhouse gases. Checkmate, liberals.

 

[mahoa]

gromsdad-typical "it's cold/just snowed where i am so climate change is fake" bs.

Meanwhile a hot day in July is proof that it’s real to the left.

Meh.

More like, we’re running out of glaciers in Glacier National Park. Or, that 11 mile wide crack that recently opened up down in Antarctica.

More carbon in the air = higher temps. Always has been that way, always will be.

Why is this a partisan issue? That is the part that doesn’t make sense to me...

The fact that carbon dioxide is used in photosynthesis negates any effect it has as a greenhouse gas, and there are worse greenhouse gases. Checkmate, liberals.

What do I care? My pad is 80’ above sea level.

Now those of you choosing to own houses in the swamps of FL or NJ...

 

[Sharkbiscuit]

gromsdad-typical "it's cold/just snowed where i am so climate change is fake" bs.

Meanwhile a hot day in July is proof that it’s real to the left.

Meh.

More like, we’re running out of glaciers in Glacier National Park. Or, that 11 mile wide crack that recently opened up down in Antarctica.

More carbon in the air = higher temps. Always has been that way, always will be.

Why is this a partisan issue? That is the part that doesn’t make sense to me...

The fact that carbon dioxide is used in photosynthesis negates any effect it has as a greenhouse gas, and there are worse greenhouse gases. Checkmate, liberals.

What do I care? My pad is 80’ above sea level.

Now those of you choosing to own houses in the swamps of FL or NJ...

My post was sarcasm; I rent on the 2nd floor.

 

[mahoa]

gromsdad-typical "it's cold/just snowed where i am so climate change is fake" bs.

Meh.

More like, we’re running out of glaciers in Glacier National Park. Or, that 11 mile wide crack that recently opened up down in Antarctica.

More carbon in the air = higher temps. Always has been that way, always will be.

Why is this a partisan issue? That is the part that doesn’t make sense to me...

The fact that carbon dioxide is used in photosynthesis negates any effect it has as a greenhouse gas, and there are worse greenhouse gases. Checkmate, liberals.

What do I care? My pad is 80’ above sea level.

Now those of you choosing to own houses in the swamps of FL or NJ...

My post was sarcasm; I rent on the 2nd floor.

That’s cool man, all good, didn’t pick up on that.

My thing is that — this is a planning issue, not a partisan one.

The data is out there, and it’s conclusive. For the Gromsdads of world; go ahead & choose your own adventure. Not much point in trying to convince anymore. Reminds of the FE debate in that it’s impossible to digest research if they’ve predetermined a conclusion. I’ll plan for my family, and they can for theirs.
No red no blue in the discussion, as I see it.

 

[Billy Ocean]

The more interesting question is

Even if you accept that global warming is real

Does it make any sense to do anything about it

 

[mahoa]

The more interesting question is

Even if you accept that global warming is real

Does it make any sense to do anything about it

If you have the alternative technology, why not?

 

[mahoa]

The more interesting question is

Even if you accept that global warming is real

Does it make any sense to do anything about it

Hey Billy
You are starting to profile like a foreign troll, all with your Forum-Sliding attempts to bury good debate beneath Your Louis CK beat-off non-sense.

So.

Care
To
Discuss?

Given global warming is real, what is the arguement against addressing it?

 

[Surfdog]

Many, many millions of people world wide will be waiting for that 3 to 30 feet of sea level rise (depending on which hyped study or modeling you believe) predicted to inundate them in the next 30-80 years, only to still be waiting in 2100 for maybe a foot in sea level rise, at best.

Where's the accelerated sea level rise since the early predictions 30-35 years ago? We were supposed to see a MINIMUM of 1 foot, to as much as 6 feet since the mid 1980's. Not even CLOSE!!

Maybe 2-3 INCHES of sea level rise, at the most, since then, with NO changes in that rate STILL to be seen on a global scale.

I can supply NOAA proof, for the umpteenth time, if you need to see it again.

Large Ice sheets have broken off Antarctica for centuries. Because we can now track every little crevice with satellites, aircraft and such, means it NEVER happened before? Pretty much all the claims of catastrophe use the same narrow framed mentality. We're so special in our modern times, that climate NEVER did extreme things in the past, so, it MUST be all our fault.

It get's hot, it's AGW. It rains a lot, it's AGW. We get a big hurricane come ashore (where there used to be only a few people, now millions in the way of it) it's AGW. We get extreme cold, snow, wind, drought, and the 7 plagues, it's AGW. Never mind these and worse events happened in the distant past, long before humans crowded in these places.

Every weather extreme is now because of AGW, according to the IPCC and the well funded wizards and modelers. Those record events of the past, 100-200+ years ago? meh. Those records still stand, but this is OUR time, and those days were meaningless and unsophisticated.

We'll be waiting for all those feet of sea level rise for quite a few more centuries. My original 2001 bet still stands for sea level rise by 2030, 2040, or 2050 if I live that long. You call the catastrophic amount, I will put money against it.

In a century or 2, we will have run out of fossil fuels anyway, and whole new energy sources will have replaced them. Then what global catastrophe will we fret about, if humans don't destroy themselves with a plague or war first?

 

[Billy Ocean]

Ok

There is no practical way to address it

Do you deny the third world the right to raise their living standard?

Do you forcibly reduce the living standards of the developed world?

Not every problem has a solution

 

[manbearpig]

gromsdad-typical "it's cold/just snowed where i am so climate change is fake" bs.

Meanwhile a hot day in July is proof that it’s real to the left.

Meh.

More like, we’re running out of glaciers in Glacier National Park. Or, that 11 mile wide crack that recently opened up down in Antarctica.

More carbon in the air = higher temps. Always has been that way, always will be.

Why is this a partisan issue? That is the part that doesn’t make sense to me...

People like gromsdad take all their info from politicians that don’t actually understand the data. This isn’t a political debate, it’s a scientific debate if anything. And it’s pretty well known the vast majority of scientists agree climate change is very real.

Looking at this issue politically is being willfully ignorant.

Politicians do not understand science, just how to use it for their political gain.

 

[GromsDad]

gromsdad-typical "it's cold/just snowed where i am so climate change is fake" bs.

Meanwhile a hot day in July is proof that it’s real to the left.

Meh.

More like, we’re running out of glaciers in Glacier National Park. Or, that 11 mile wide crack that recently opened up down in Antarctica.

More carbon in the air = higher temps. Always has been that way, always will be.

Why is this a partisan issue? That is the part that doesn’t make sense to me...

The fact that carbon dioxide is used in photosynthesis negates any effect it has as a greenhouse gas, and there are worse greenhouse gases. Checkmate, liberals.

What do I care? My pad is 80’ above sea level.

Now those of you choosing to own houses in the swamps of FL or NJ...

You mean places where there have always been storms and where the sea level is in the exact same place as it has been for generations?

 

[mahoa]

Ok

There is no practical way to address it

Do you deny the third world the right to raise their living standard?

Do you forcibly reduce the living standards of the developed world?

Not every problem has a solution

What about stop burning so much oil and coal? Seems that would make a dent.