170 Years of Earth Surface Temperature Data Show No Evidence of Significant Warming

https://i.ibb.co/gr8kNHX/pw05.jpg https://i.ibb.co/DQNTBQD/pw04.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/4j0cn33/pw03.jpg

NASA STUDY FINDS SAME THING

https://i.ibb.co/NStSSyZ/pw02.jpg

https://i.ibb.co/HdHt12L/pw01.jpg

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/11/14/170-years-of-earth-surface-temperature-data-show-no-evidence-of-significant-warming/

About 170 years ago, there were only 1.2 billion people in the world. Most of the cities were only single-digit million people living there. There was plenty of farmland and resources. The trees were still making forests look like jungles. The pollution levels in cities were probably worse back then than now for many places. And we could not reliably measure temperature and air pressure variations accurately.

In the year 2021, we have 7.8 billion people. Cities have plenty of millions of people residing. Plenty of medium-sized cities. The forests have been cut down to a third of what they were. Pollution levels, although widely kept in check, have been more widespread. Meanwhile, we have some of the most accurate weather measuring devices ever. And we can basically predict what weather patters will be like inside a 2 week period with good accuracy.

The thing is that people have claimed that since 1880 (incidentally when our last cold period eventuated), climate change has seen a 1.5-degree Celsius rise in average temperatures globally. Some estimated as high as 2 degrees celsius. And considering that was an increase in average global temperature measured based on the rise since the period that was a temporary cool period, it leaves me wondering why we should be panicking about "global warming". I mean, we should consider ourselves lucky that it is only 2 degrees.

Ajax, you do realise that the green line represents the RATE of change and that anything above 0 indicates increased warming.
You've had issues before with your inability understand what the graphs actually mean and I think you have fallen into that trap again
;D

The_Barnacle wrote on May 30^th, 2021 at 1:28pm:

Ajax, you do realise that the green line represents the RATE of change and that anything above 0 indicates increased warming.

You do realise that GISTEMP is also an adjusted series?

"The NASA GISS Surface Temperature (GISTEMP) analysis provides a measure of the changing global surface temperature with monthly resolution for the period since 1880, when a reasonably global distribution of meteorological stations was established. The input data that the GISTEMP Team use for the analysis, collected by many national meteorological services around the world, are the adjusted data of the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) Vs. 3 (this represents a change from prior use of unadjusted Vs. 2 data) (Peterson and Vose, 1997 and 1998), United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) data, and SCAR (Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research) data from Antarctic stations. Documentation of the basic analysis method is provided by Hansen et al. (1999), with several modifications described by Hansen et al. (2001). The GISS analysis is updated monthly, however CDIAC's presentation of the data here is updated annually. "

"Significant updates to the GISTEMP Team methods are described in a 2010 paper. They describe the use of satellite-observed nightlights to identify measurement stations located in extreme darkness and adjust temperature trends of urban and peri-urban stations for non-climatic factors, verifying that urban effects on analyzed global change are small. "

https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/temp/hansen/hansen.html

They apparently adjust for UHI. Although the 2010 paper link at the page comes back as "Not Found".

As I have said before temperature adjustments are a no-no. Temperature is an intensive property.

The_Barnacle wrote on May 30^th, 2021 at 1:28pm:

Ajax, you do realise that the green line represents the RATE of change and that anything above 0 indicates increased warming. You've had issues before with your inability understand what the graphs actually mean and I think you have fallen into that trap again ;D

So who said it has not warmed barny....... ::) ::) ::)

If anything you should have picked up that this warming has nothing to do with man made CO2 emissions.

Or did that information go over the top of your head.

Naughty boy deliberately trying to distort things..... >:(

Thanks Lee................ 8-)

Ajax wrote on May 30^th, 2021 at 3:45pm:

So who said it has not warmed barny.......

Um you did Ajax in your OP  ;D ;D ;D


Ajax wrote on May 30^th, 2021 at 12:16pm:

170 Years of Earth Surface Temperature Data Show No Evidence of Significant Warming

The_Barnacle wrote on May 30^th, 2021 at 4:05pm:

Ajax wrote on May 30th, 2021 at 3:45pm: So who said it has not warmed barny....... Um you did Ajax in your OP  ;D ;D ;D Ajax wrote on May 30th, 2021 at 12:16pm: 170 Years of Earth Surface Temperature Data Show No Evidence of Significant Warming

Put your glasses on barny and slow down a bit.

170 Years of Earth Surface Temperature Data Show No Evidence of Significant Warming

Ajax wrote on May 30^th, 2021 at 4:23pm:

Put your glasses on barny and slow down a bit.

Poor barney likes to repeat things that are not said. ;)

No evidence of "significant warming" means that there is no global warming. Is that your conclusion?

It doesn't matter what the graphs are showing to us here in Australia.
Nothing we can do is going to change it.

Ajax wrote on May 30^th, 2021 at 4:23pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on May 30th, 2021 at 4:05pm: Ajax wrote on May 30th, 2021 at 3:45pm: So who said it has not warmed barny....... Um you did Ajax in your OP  ;D ;D ;D Ajax wrote on May 30th, 2021 at 12:16pm: 170 Years of Earth Surface Temperature Data Show No Evidence of Significant Warming Put your glasses on barny and slow down a bit. 170 Years of Earth Surface Temperature Data Show No Evidence of Significant Warming

So what is significant? saying that it "looks kind of small to me" is just ignorant
You do realise that even small rises in temperatures are going to have a profound effect on crops and sea level


This reminds me of your post about how the effects of CO2 diminish with greater concentrations. Yet you still failed to realise that even that diminshed effect would be enough.

You are a classic conspiracy theorist Ajax. You never actually look beyond the headline as long as it appears to confirm your pre concieved ideas


Ajax wrote on May 30^th, 2021 at 3:45pm:

Thanks Lee................

Except that if you read lee's post you would realise that it had nothing to do with your opening post.
He is merely trolling and diverting because he craves my attention so much  ;D

The_Barnacle wrote on May 31^st, 2021 at 7:41am:

So what is significant? saying that it "looks kind of small to me" is just ignorant

Real Climate scientists use Kelvin. so 288 Kelvin +1 Kelvin is really small. About 0.35%. Now that is stable.


The_Barnacle wrote on May 31^st, 2021 at 7:41am:

You do realise that even small rises in temperatures are going to have a profound effect on crops and sea level

Sea level has been both higher and lower than now. You can't make any predictions.

Crops? What will happen to crops? Drown? DustBowl dryness? You should try science instead of emotion.


The_Barnacle wrote on May 31^st, 2021 at 7:41am:

Yet you still failed to realise that even that diminshed effect would be enough.

Empirical evidence or is that what the models tell you. You know the models that haven't been right once. ;)


The_Barnacle wrote on May 31^st, 2021 at 7:41am:

He is merely trolling and diverting because he craves my attention so much

Poor petal. Can't even try to be honest. Why is that? ::)

But the gaphs are all heading skywards which could be just an anomaly as Lee says or it could mean the extinction of life in the universe.

Johnnie wrote on May 31^st, 2021 at 10:11pm:

But the gaphs are all heading skywards which could be just an anomaly as Lee says or it could mean the extinction of life in the universe.

Less than 1 Kelvin is hardly skywards.

https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2018/11/figure-23.png

As can be seen the models have a start position with an approximate 3C spread.

NOAA put the 2020 temperature at +0.98C. The question then becomes was it from the lowest hindcast, the upper most hindcast or somewhere in between?

Another graph for you enjoyment -

https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2018/11/figure-41.png

Wow  the GISS model start point is the observation end point. You really can do many things with models/ ;D ;D ;D ;D

The_Barnacle wrote on May 31^st, 2021 at 7:41am:

So what is significant? saying that it "looks kind of small to me" is just ignorant You do realise that even small rises in temperatures are going to have a profound effect on crops and sea level

Oh like it has never happened before right, but you do adore the hockey stick dont you barny.

Did the medieval warm period and the little ice age exist barny ....???

https://i.ibb.co/pr99Hjc/MWP-11.jpg



Quote:

This reminds me of your post about how the effects of CO2 diminish with greater concentrations. Yet you still failed to realise that even that diminshed effect would be enough.

But the scientific community agrees that the more CO2 thrown up into the atmosphere the less its effect on Earth's temperature.

Would be enough for what barny......???

A runaway green house effect...............???

In the past we have had from 3000ppm to 7000ppm of atmospheric CO2 and yet there was no runaway greenhouse effect, are you saying with 410ppm this will be the case, I think its you that doesnt know what he is talking about.

If the Earth was as finely tuned as you make it out to be we would have perished eons ago.


Quote:

You are a classic conspiracy theorist Ajax. You never actually look beyond the headline as long as it appears to confirm your pre concieved ideas

Made up your mind barny...finished now or is ther more sheet to come..... :o ;D :) ;)