Has temperature data been changed?

[simon12]

I just came across this

Which claims global temperature data has been changed in the early 2000s and the world was hottest in the 1930s and through the 60 and 70s global cooling was most feared. Is this a conspiracy theory or is there some truth in it?

 

[simon12]

Just realised he made an update correcting some minor mistakes

 

[Chippy_Tea]

I hope Gunge doesn't see this.

 

[IainM]

Classic denialist stuff. Focus on one region, land data in the US, and pretend that their graphs are for global data, when in fact global adjustments on land and ocean data increase the historical temperature and reduce the amount of global warming reported, and do in fact show the cooling from the 40s to the 70s. Claim that the data is fabricated, but doesn't even attempt to explain why adjustments are made let alone offer reasons for why it is wrong. It's all sleight of hand, but people fall for it hook, line and sinker.

 

[Bigcol49]

Classic denialist stuff

Hi!
I don't believe in denialists.

 

[Clint]

Yeah denying denialists exist is actually confirming you refuse to accept something that never happened.
Fact!

 

[IainM]

I could not fail to disagree with you less.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

The way i see it is one set of scientists say global warming exists and another say it doesn't i haven't a clue which are telling the truth but i doubt cutting CO2 is going to make that much difference.

 

[simon12]

I have no idea at all so will just go with whatever Gunge says.

 

[IainM]

The way i see it is one set of scientists say global warming exists and another say it doesn't.

Except this really isn't the case. Almost all scientists, especially those who work in atmospheric or climate science, agree that it exists. I could lose a few fingers and still count the number of respectable detractors on them.

 

[Gunge]

I hope Gunge doesn't see this.

I saw it five minutes after it was posted but I can't be arsed to get involved tbh. It's all utter, total cack. They'll still be fiddling the numbers in a hundred years from now and telling everyone there's ten years left to save the planet.

 

[Clint]

Climate change has always existed. The cause of it is debatable. It’s like eggs and lard....one minute they’re the spawn of the devil the next they’re ok...I’m just off to make some eggs and lard on toast...

 

[Bigcol49]

Hi!
What's the Guvmint doing with the Climate Change levy that I pay on my gas 'n' leccy bills?

 

[Dode]

Regardless of what mankind does, or doesn't, do to keep pollution at bay. Climate change will still occur but it won't be as bad as it could be if man makes the effort to maintain the planet, IMO.

Steven Hawking reckons humanity has only a hundred years left on earth.

 

[Bigcol49]

could lose a few fingers and still count the number of respectable detractors on them.

Hi!
The trouble is, there are many examples in the past where the lone voice, regarded as renegade by his peers, turned out to be correct.
We were told 10 to 20 years ago that the UK would have a Mediterranean climate - I'm still waiting.

 

[IainM]

Hi!
The trouble is, there are many examples in the past where the lone voice, regarded as renegade by his peers, turned out to be correct.
We were told 10 to 20 years ago that the UK would have a Mediterranean climate - I'm still waiting.

Nobody told me that. The only figures I've ever heard would be a degree or so per decade!

And while yes, there are many examples of the lone voice turning out to be correct once the evidence was in, there have been crowds of lone voices that turned out just plain wrong. You never hear about those, because they were never vindicated. Plus, when it comes to climate change, the evidence is already in. The lone voice is about as likely to be correct on this as it is on the earth being flat.

 

[Gunge]

Regardless of what mankind does, or doesn't, do to keep pollution at bay. Climate change will still occur but it won't be as bad as it could be if man makes the effort to maintain the planet, IMO.

Very true, but what has carbon dioxide got to do with pollution? Mankind's contribution to total atmospheric CO2 is a truly miniscule amount to what is already no more than a trace gas. Without it there would be no life. Most of ours comes from the burning of fossil fuels - upon which we have built our civilisation and upon which we depend. Fossil fuels are finite, just like our very existence if alternatives aren't found. CO2 is the convenient tool to scare the masses into change. Fine... but the connection with climate and cataclysmic consequences is pure fantasy.

 

[IainM]

Very true, but what has carbon dioxide got to do with pollution? Mankind's contribution to total atmospheric CO2 is a truly miniscule amount to what is already no more than a trace gas.

It can absorb vast amounts of infra-red radiation that otherwise would radiate into space. The ability for greenhouse gasses to trap infra-red is the reason the surface of venus is 450C, much higher than that of mercury (~150C), even though it's further away from the sun.

 

[Clint]

Bigcol...yep good question what DO they do with the green tax...I know..put it in their pension pots! Or perhaps they are constructing some massive atmosphere processors that will purify the atmosphere.
Interesting that at one point in earths history there were no seasons...just a sort of summer,lots of things lived,for millions of years.

 

[Clint]

Venus....what holds the gasses to the planet? Is it gravity?