World breaks new heat records in July: NOAA scientists

A child cools off in a fountain next to the Manzanares river in Madrid on July 15, 2015
A child cools off in a fountain next to the Manzanares river in Madrid on July 15, 2015

The world broke new heat records in July, marking the hottest month in history and the warmest first seven months of the year since modern record-keeping began in 1880, US authorities said Thursday.

The findings by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration showed a troubling trend, as the planet continues to warm due to the burning of , and scientists expect the scorching temperatures to get worse.

"The world is warming. It is continuing to warm. That is being shown time and time again in our data," said Jake Crouch, physical scientist at NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information.

"Now that we are fairly certain that 2015 will be the warmest year on , it is time to start looking at what are the impacts of that? What does that mean for people on the ground?" he told reporters.

The month's across land and sea surfaces worldwide was 61.86 Fahrenheit (16.61 Celsius), marking the hottest July ever.

The previous record for July was set in 1998.

"This was also the all-time highest monthly in the 1880-2015 record," said NOAA in its monthly climate report.

"The first seven months of the year (January-July) were also all-time record warm for the globe," NOAA said.

When scientists looked at temperatures for the year-to-date, they found land and ocean surfaces were 1.53 F (0.85 C) above the 20th century average.

A drought-hit maize field in the municipality of Texiguat, about 100 km southeast of Tegucigalpa, Honduras is pictured on July 2
A drought-hit maize field in the municipality of Texiguat, about 100 km southeast of Tegucigalpa, Honduras is pictured on July 26, 2015

"This was the highest for January-July in the 1880-2015 record, surpassing the previous record set in 2010 by 0.16 F (0.09 C)."

Scientists also calculated the rate of temperature increase for July at an average of 1.17 F (0.65 C) per century.

Large parts of the Earth were much warmer than average, including Africa which saw its second hottest July on record.

"Record warmth was also observed across much of northern South America, parts of southern Europe and central Asia, and the far western United States," said the NOAA report.

Parts of eastern Scandinavia and western Russia, eastern and southern Asia and scattered areas in central and northern North America were cooler than average.


Explore further

Record heat for globe in June: US scientists

© 2015 AFP

Citation: World breaks new heat records in July: NOAA scientists (2015, August 20) retrieved 24 August 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2015-08-world-july-noaa-scientists.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
1776 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Aug 20, 2015
Where is that heat exacly so I know where to move to? I'm sick of this cold summer we've been getting here in Alberta.

Aug 20, 2015
Where is that heat exacly so I know where to move to? I'm sick of this cold summer we've been getting here in Alberta.
perhaps you should try re-reading that first sentence, since you missed the title?
The world broke new heat records in July, marking the hottest month in history and the warmest first seven months of the year since modern record-keeping began in 1880, US authorities said Thursday.
as suggested, they're talking about CLIMATE, whereas you are talking about WEATHER

they're talking about WORLD temps (and CLIMATE) which was given away several times, like in this quote
Large parts of the Earth were much warmer than average...
you live in an area that is mentioned in the LAST sentence...


Aug 20, 2015
Every day we have to have at least one pronouncement that AGW is rampant. Repetition is thought to be convincing.

Aug 20, 2015
Where is that heat exacly so I know where to move to? I'm sick of this cold summer we've been getting here in Alberta.

Which Alberta do you live in?
It was +30C all last week. 27C yesterday and 25C today.

Aug 20, 2015
Does this include the data that was adjusted upward that claimed the hottest years on record were in the 1930s?

Aug 20, 2015
"marking the hottest month in history"

Define "history".

Several recent climate studies, confirmed by extensive ice-core data, show that approximately 12,500 years ago (a blink of an eye in Earth time), over a 1,500-year span, there was a dramatic global heating of approximately 21 degrees Fahrenheit / 11.55°C (Alley 2004). The ice-core data suggest that half of this significant and rapid increase—about 11 degrees Fahrenheit (6.05°C)—occurred in less than fifteen years, around 9600 BCE. This dramatic increase is conspicuously absent from climate change discussion, even though this information is made publicly available by the National Climate Data Center:

ftp://ftp.ncdc.no...2000.txt

This event is also clearly described in the records of ancient people. Saying that July was "the hottest month in history" is revisionism and erasure. Or possibly ignorance.

Aug 20, 2015
Where is that heat exacly so I know where to move to? I'm sick of this cold summer we've been getting here in Alberta.

Thanks. I was starting to think it was just me.
First summer I've not had to use a fan.

Aug 20, 2015
"marking the hottest month in history"

Define "history".


Err ... the history of the instrumental record.
FFS

In fact as the first sentence above states....

"The world broke new heat records in July, marking the hottest month in history and the warmest first seven months of the year since modern record-keeping began in 1880, US authorities said Thursday."

And

""This was also the all-time highest monthly temperature in the 1880-2015 record," said NOAA in its monthly climate report."


Aug 20, 2015
goracle
Thanks. I was starting to think it was just me.


No no - you have plenty of company there - lots of other people don't know the difference between climate and weather - and are happy to advertise the fact.

Then, there is you and the rest of the AGW Chicken Littles, who pretend to know.

Aug 20, 2015
Does this include the data that was adjusted upward that claimed the hottest years on record were in the 1930s?


You mean those small number of US sites that were data noise and were dealt with in valid statistical ways. I don't know. Read some explanatory notes sometime. Once again, an American thinks their local city is "the globe".

Where is that heat exacly so I know where to move to? I'm sick of this cold summer we've been getting here in Alberta.


Alberta as well, apparently. I apologise to the Americans. This myopia is spreading.

Aug 20, 2015
Once again, an American thinks their local city is "the globe".

Well, at least it's in the globe, unlike that delusional world of doom and gloom in which you live.

Aug 20, 2015
WOW the DENIER GOON SQUAD is really kicking it into high gear to prove the disprovable, and deny fact and claim fallacy as fact. I'm always stunned at how the propagandist deniers love to blow off global warming when each new data batch shows without a doubt that global warming is getting worst and worst. Deniers don't give a crap about anyone/anything including their own future and kids (such lovely pieces of trash they are).


Aug 20, 2015
World breaks new heat records in July: NOAA scientists


This announcement was paid for by Socialist Politicians and Bureaucrats for Government Control of the Means of Production.

http://earthguide..._1.shtml

The last of the ice ages in human experience (often referred to as the Ice Age) reached its maximum roughly 20,000 years ago, and then gave way to warming. Sea level rose in two major steps, one centered near 14,000 years and the other near 11,500 years. However, between these two periods of rapid melting there was a pause in melting and sea level rise, known as the "Younger Dryas" period. During the Younger Dryas the climate system went back into almost fully glacial conditions, after having offered balmy conditions for more than 1000 years. The reasons for these large swings in climate change are not yet well understood.

"What I'm convinced of is that we don't understand climate." - Freeman Dyson

Aug 20, 2015
Freeman Dyson likes nuclear weapons. What kind of idiot is that?

A malicious one.

Aug 20, 2015
The source of Shootist's quote;
https://www.quant...-a-ph-d/
Actually a good read, Dyson is a smart guy. Scroll down ~35% to see where Shootist does the selective quoting thing. Tsk.

Aug 20, 2015
Oh, and changing the comma to a period is just dishonest.

Aug 20, 2015
Funny how the artic ice packs have gained more than a million square miles in the last 7 years. In 2014 alone they gained 155,000 square miles. Very disappointing for global warming enthusiasts.

Aug 20, 2015
"The sea ice cap of the Arctic appeared to reach its annual maximum winter extent on Feb. 25, according to data from the NASA-supported National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) at the University of Colorado, Boulder. At 5.61 million square miles (14.54 million square kilometers), this year's maximum extent was the smallest on the satellite record and also one of the earliest."

"Arctic sea ice, frozen seawater floating on top of the Arctic Ocean and its neighboring seas, is in constant change: it grows in the fall and winter, reaching its annual maximum between late February and early April, and then it shrinks in the spring and summer until it hits its annual minimum extent in September. The past decades have seen a downward trend in Arctic sea ice extent during both the growing and melting season, though the decline is steeper in the latter."

https://www.nasa....n-record

Aug 20, 2015
Funny how the artic ice packs have gained more than a million square miles in the last 7 years. In 2014 alone they gained 155,000 square miles. Very disappointing for global warming enthusiasts.


Arctice sea ice has declined 11-13% since 1979. You're confusing the short-term regression to the mean with the long-term trend. And that regression is only since 2012 anyway (not sure where you got 7 yrs from?). With ice melt for this year tracking well below the long-term average, the September summer ice extent (used for long-term melt trends) will continue that decline trend but may not exceed the record melt of 2012. When it finally does, no doubt you'll shift your cherry pick to that year instead and we'll hear cries of "recovery since 2016" until there's no summer ice left at all.

Aug 20, 2015
Here are 2 links, where it's easy to see how much they have cooked the temperature data.
http://data.giss....data_v2/
http://data.giss....on_data/

Aug 20, 2015
Porgie - would you have a reference to support your assertion? You do know the difference between Arctic and Antarctic right? We would not want to think that you were another antigoracle, and just spamming this site - but not having a clue about anything.


Porgie is talking through his ass, typical denier.

Aug 21, 2015
Every day we have to have at least one pronouncement that AGW is rampant. Repetition is thought to be convincing.

As is evidence.

Aug 21, 2015
Where is that heat exacly so I know where to move to? I'm sick of this cold summer we've been getting here in Alberta.

Thanks. I was starting to think it was just me.
First summer I've not had to use a fan.

Which Alberta Do you live in?
http://www.accuwe...7/1/2015

Aug 21, 2015
As long as trolls keep getting paid, they will keep posting against every AGW article here. It's tedious but predictable.

Aug 21, 2015
marcush,
As long as trolls keep getting paid, they will keep posting against every AGW article here. It's tedious but predictable.


People don't get paid for pointing out that the AGWites are pushing a socialist agenda but the AGWites do get to redistribute resources. As long as they get paid to publish global warming stories, the AGWites will keep posting AGW articles. It's tedious but predictable.

Aug 21, 2015
greenonions,
For years now you have been screaming that the socialists are wrong - and that there is no warming.


Not true. I point out that you are promoting an agendaand are using climate as a scare tactic to redistribute resources.

As to warming, we have been coming out of an ice age for twenty thousand years. Of course there has been warming. And temperatures are variable, in climate and weather.

Aug 21, 2015
"Define History"
History is defined as past events, but its more accurate to say history started as man started recording events. Especially since prehistoric is before written history.
This is how any warming event in the distant past that @Jefferyjoemiller refers to isn't considered "history" in the article.

Aug 21, 2015
From longer perspective, we are slowly moving toward to temperature levels, which were on Earth around 2000 years ago and then later in around 50 years we will hopefully reach temperature levels wich were here around 4000 years ago. This is the positive scenario, when we take in account, that we currently live in Ice age (thats true, check it if you dont believe me).
Really threatening negative scenario would be if there would be sudden onset of new glacial period of current Ice age. THAT would be real catastrophy for humanity, not the scenario of slow increasing temperature. And despite much research we really dont know, what is causing start of glacial periods so it can happen at any time.

Aug 21, 2015
Longer temperature timeline showing that this year is highest only on small time scale:
https://en.wikipe...ions.png

Aug 21, 2015
People don't get paid for pointing out that the AGWites are pushing a socialist agenda...
Why are you pulling down your tie Willie? Is it getting too HOT?
You are the shame of the scientific community. Your career in astrophysics is OVER.

Don't worry, it is going to be alright, your friends are going to find you a job on an oil rig; you like petro-dollars so much anyway. http://www.thegua...el-firms

Dug
Aug 21, 2015
If you search Google for the "hottest summer on record" you'll find that almost every year has those headlines since AGW has had headlines. There is zero economically feasible and sustainable alternative technology to get us off of petroleum now. When and if there ever is an economically feasible alternative energy source (fusion?) we then have to figure out to get the global food production system off the petro-chemicals that the human food supply is absolutely dependent upon. Petrochemicals not being economically viable without the current petroleum energy industry economy-of-scale.

I suggest we focus on our looming finite resource crisis, its related economics and our totally unsustainable human population. These are things that are technically and economically within our control. Climate change - regardless of the reason - not so much. We will run out of finite resources long before climate change impacts destroy us. Not understanding this shows the level of our ignorance.

Aug 21, 2015
Two land owners. Lets call them Bill and Ted. Both grow crops.
Bill uses some of his crops to produce biodiesel to fuel his machinery. The CO2 Bill produces goes back into his crops next growing season. Bill is carbon neutral.
Ted sells all his crops. Ted pumps oil from under his land to fuel his machinery. The CO2 from Ted doesn't go back underground. His waste products end up on Bill's land.
Ted socializes the disposal of waste from his property.
This makes Ted a socialist.

Aug 21, 2015
And the psycho delusionists once again rush feverishly to the defense of their fragile delusions.....troll is too nice a word for them. The bat shit crazy part is true, paid or not - just another name for the psychosis behind the requirement for delusion

Aug 21, 2015
Two land owners. Lets call them Bill and Ted...yak...yak...yakity..yak...

Next year Bill is broke, the bank forecloses and he's lucky to still have the shirt on his back.
This makes Bill just slightly more intelligent than you.

Aug 21, 2015
Two land owners. Lets call them Bill and Ted...yak...yak...yakity..yak...

Next year Bill is broke, the bank forecloses and he's lucky to still have the shirt on his back.
This makes Bill just slightly more intelligent than you.

A lesson on intelligence from a socialist who doesn't want to admit he is a socialist.

Aug 21, 2015
Dug, I believe you are saying that you believe control of human population is within our grasp and energy/economical evolution is not. You have got it amazingly, precisely, backwards. Is that a coincidence? I doubt it - this has the smell of a delusion at work.
Climate change within our control? That remains to be seen. We absolutely know we can make steps in the right direction, and those steps will also have the added benefit of fueling our economies and improving our lives - quite likely to the point that addressing overpopulation becomes not only a feasible goal, but possibly a by-product.

Aug 21, 2015
World breaks new heat records in July: NOAA scientists


This announcement was paid for by Socialist Politicians and Bureaucrats for Government Control of the Means of Production.

http://earthguide..._1.shtml

This denial was paid for by right-wing dolts that believe that AGW is not happening because God has said that he will not smite the Earth again while forgetting that God never said he would prevent man from smiting the Earth.

Aug 21, 2015
From longer perspective, we are slowly moving toward to temperature levels, which were on Earth around 2000 years ago and then later in around 50 years we will hopefully reach temperature levels wich were here around 4000 years ago. This is the positive scenario, when we take in account, that we currently live in Ice age (thats true, check it if you dont believe me).
Really threatening negative scenario would be if there would be sudden onset of new glacial period of current Ice age. THAT would be real catastrophy for humanity, not the scenario of slow increasing temperature. And despite much research we really dont know, what is causing start of glacial periods so it can happen at any time.

So climate change happening in 50 years that once happened in 2,000 years is a good thing then?

Aug 21, 2015
So much hate in this thread, so little meat.

increase for July at an average of 1.17 F (0.65 C) per century.

This seems remarkably shortsighted.

I wonder why no paper was cited.

Let's take a look at actuals:
June 2015 GISS global temperature anomaly is +0.75 deg C
https://bobtisdal...loti.png

June 2015 NCEI global land plus sea surface temperature anomaly was +0.88 deg C
https://bobtisdal...ncei.png

June 2015 HADCRUT4 global temperature anomaly is +0.73 deg C
https://bobtisdal...rut4.png

July 2015 UAH lower troposphere temperature anomaly is +0.18 deg C
https://bobtisdal...-tlt.png

July 2015 RSS lower troposphere temperature anomaly is +0.29 deg C
https://bobtisdal...-tlt.png

More later. I wonder if some enterprising person will actually compare the numbers


Aug 21, 2015
@Ultron:
And despite much research we really dont know, what is causing start of glacial periods so it can happen at any time.
Incorrect. The onsets of ice ages, and of glaciations and interglacials, and stadials and interstadials, within ice ages, has been shown to be due to the Milanković cycles which are due to predictable oscillations in the Earth's orbit and the inclination of its axis, and to the well-documented arrangements of continents which either allows or restricts global ocean circulation from the equators to the poles. With the Antarctic and South Pole covered by a continent, and the Arctic almost completely surrounded by blocking continents, we are in an ice age, and the state of the Milanković cycles at this time dictates that we are in an interglacial that is predicted to last another 35,000 years.

Aug 21, 2015
@Ultron:
Longer temperature timeline showing that this year is highest only on small time scale: https://en.wikipe...ions.png

Note that Homonids didn't evolve until well after the PETM. And modern humans didn't evolve until the Pleistocene.

Aug 21, 2015
If you search Google for the "hottest summer on record" you'll find that almost every year has those headlines since AGW has had headlines.
Umm, this is pretty duh. What do you do for an encore, gargle peanut butter? Isn't this pretty much what you'd expect if they were *right*?

Teh stupid, it burns.

Aug 21, 2015
Two land owners. Lets call them Bill and Ted...yak...yak...yakity..yak...

Next year Bill is broke, the bank forecloses and he's lucky to still have the shirt on his back.
This makes Bill just slightly more intelligent than you.

A lesson on intelligence from a socialist who doesn't want to admit he is a socialist.
Actually, this is how capitalists and communists operate: make society pay for their profits. A socialist pays hir own way.

If you wanna get technical about it.

Aug 21, 2015
We absolutely know we can make steps in the right direction, and those steps will also have the added benefit of fueling our economies and improving our lives - quite likely to the point that addressing overpopulation becomes not only a feasible goal, but possibly a by-product.
The birth rate in the industrialized countries per capita has dropped. I throw this out there to indicate that there may be other factors working in favor of a slowing or even termination of the lemming march toward a Malthusian solution that global warming seems to be embodying. I gave you 5 stars anyway, but next time I might only give 4.

Aug 22, 2015
If you search Google for the "hottest summer on record" you'll find that almost every year has those headlines since AGW has had headlines.
Umm, this is pretty duh. What do you do for an encore, gargle peanut butter? Isn't this pretty much what you'd expect if they were *right*?

Teh stupid, it burns.


LOL. That's what I thought. We keep getting new "hottest summers on record" because each of those summers was the hottest on record until the next one - the new hottest summer on record. Because of global warming.

Each of the Top 10 hottest years have been since 1998. I find it hilarious somebody is using that as an argument AGAINST the science.

Aug 22, 2015
goracle
Thanks. I was starting to think it was just me.


No no - you have plenty of company there - lots of other people don't know the difference between climate and weather - and are happy to advertise the fact.


Yep thats why he named himself after a gorilla, evidently he has no intention of denying that fact either lol... his other goons, donglish, small willieward and shoot the potty, enforces his presence by making sure everyone know how intellectually deficient they all are, makes for great comedy though... :D

Aug 22, 2015
If you search Google for the "hottest summer on record" you'll find that almost every year has those headlines since AGW has had headlines.
Umm, this is pretty duh. What do you do for an encore, gargle peanut butter? Isn't this pretty much what you'd expect if they were *right*?

Teh stupid, it burns.


LOL. That's what I thought. We keep getting new "hottest summers on record" because each of those summers was the hottest on record until the next one - the new hottest summer on record. Because of global warming.

Each of the Top 10 hottest years have been since 1998. I find it hilarious somebody is using that as an argument AGAINST the science.


oooohh.. struck him right In the nuts there lol well said leetennant, the stupid burns these monkeys indeed, so much it confuses and consumes them... oil daddy got more peanuts for them though... and we all know they'll proudly boast their stupidity and do anything for a few extra nuts everyday... :)

Aug 22, 2015
Bill uses some of his crops to produce biodiesel to fuel his machinery. The CO2 Bill produces goes back into his crops next growing season. Bill is carbon neutral.
--ekim
A lesson in ignorance from an idiot.
Find me a single case like this.

Aug 22, 2015
"A lesson in ignorance from an idiot."
------------------------------

You've given us lots of those, Toots.

You are losing and you know it. It drives you polluters mad, we know, but we cannot continue to kill ourselves for your profits. If you continue to pollute, we will have to put you in prison.

Aug 22, 2015
Note that Homonids didn't evolve until well after the PETM. And modern humans didn't evolve until the Pleistocene.

It doesn't matter. The earth does what it wants to do, regardless of humans, or any other living thing.

What a roach of a thread. Bitter insulting back and forth over an article that has no citation, no mention of the measurement system used, and no presentation of any data at all. To boot, the data used to make the claim is post-Karl adjusted.

Any self-respecting skeptic should be able to rip the insulters limb from limb in this one with facts. You guys are wasting your time trading insults.

we will have to put you in prison

I wonder if you send children to bi-curious websites, as you did me.


Aug 22, 2015
we will have to put you in prison

... to bi-curious websites, as you did me.



Lol... aaah thats the site i'd also had reccomend him, but donglish donged at all those sites already, his real fetish he keeps secret though... (but i know what it is ;) ) :D

Aug 22, 2015
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/07/27/mind-blowing-temperature-fraud-at-noaa/


Oh wait, this thread was pwnt early on! Nice work antigoracle, the minimalist presentation is perfect.

Aug 22, 2015
https://stevengod...at-noaa/


Oh wait, this thread was pwnt early on! Nice work antigoracle, the minimalist presentation is perfect.


Well done indeed ! Indeed your gorilla sock got a truly potty site there, perfect to present his stupidity right here on physorg... :D

"But after being contacted by Dr. Walt Meier at NSIDC he was forced to issue a retraction;

he attacked the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

Steven Goddard writes: "Dr. Walt Meier at NSIDC has convinced me this week that their ice extent numbers are solid…. It is clear that the NSIDC graph is correct, and that 2008 Arctic ice is barely 10% above last year – just as NSIDC had stated."

Aug 22, 2015
Let's take a look at some other things:
http://www.wsj.co...86369820

This is the claim to the hottest July once before.

Then, with another dataset from NOAA:
https://wattsupwi...emps.png

Here's what it means: NOAA can't get their data straight. This is probably why there was no paper cited in the article.

Aug 22, 2015
Donglish as delusional as ever, struggling to recocnize evidence, and struggling to make sense of how to compare and understand real evidence, now now,
... mental school first, then kindergarden, without those you'll never get to primary school... keep trying... :D

Aug 22, 2015
Lets take another look at NOAA not understanding their own numbers. This is from an analysis done in 2013.

2012 NOAA July Comparisons:
https://wattsupwi...0121.png

2013 NOAA July Comparisons:
https://wattsupwi...0141.png

Notice the new 1936 number.

NOAA fiddles with their numbers.

If someone came to me with changing data, number one I would not make policy based on their input and number two I would not trust them to the point where I would base a viewpoint solely on their work.

Aug 22, 2015
But what really takes the cake is that all of the NOAA presentation is post-Karl. This means that the past temperatures have been reduced, which will make present temperatures look hotter.

Who knows? Perhaps this really is the hottest July on record. Are you going to take NOAAs word for it? Why?

Aug 22, 2015
That's why countless of solid evidence over years and years given on this site has proven human made climate change to be fact, Any real scientist does not care who donglish trusts as it's irrelevant and his opinions proven to be of low intellect, compared to about as much as a real scientist would trust a monkey to explain climatology to them, aka donglish and his sock puppets. ;)

Aug 22, 2015
... a look at actuals:
wait... you want to look at "actual data" but then link to a fraud BLOG?
what?
lets examine tisdale closely:
http://wottsupwit...tisdale/

http://ingeniousp...ing.html

https://andthenth...t-there/

IOW- your data is debunked by equivalent data (but from a far more reputable source, as they at least have more support from the scientific community)
It is the same conjuring trick to hide the incline that creationists were doing in the 80s, amply demonstrated by Stephen Jay Gould all those years ago
IOW- intentional misleading
Anyone who says they are an independent climate researcher is immediately going to look stupid...What you have said is that I have no support from the scientific community and that you are highly likely to be a climate science denier
best description yet
"tisdale" credibility=0

Aug 22, 2015
This from the same people who've manipulated the temperature data.
http://chemtrails...reports/

In a free market, these guys wouldn't be getting any more funding to further their lies; lies which lead to their funding, by our government at our expense.

Which is a good reason for government to get out of this business.

Aug 22, 2015
There is a conflict of interest problem here.

No AGW, and a lot of these guys lose relevance, and funding. They must maintain the alarm, or they're gone.

The more I'm reading about this temperature manipulation, I'm gaining two beliefs: The Land-Sea data is quite haphazrd, and the NOAA and brethren are not being consistent in what they say.

Aug 22, 2015
Deny, deny, deny, . . . Song of the Fossil Fuel Apologists.

Aug 22, 2015
Lets take another look at NOAA not understanding their own numbers. This is from an analysis done in 2013.

2012 NOAA July Comparisons:
https://wattsupwi...0121.png

Notice the new 1936 number.

NOAA fiddles with their numbers.

If someone came to me with changing data, number one I would not make policy based on their input and number two I would not trust them to the point where I would base a viewpoint solely on their work.

Most incredulous is that the US cooled while the globe warmed and started warming as the globe cooled. I'm still waiting for AGW "science" to explain that.

Aug 22, 2015
Deny, deny, deny, . . . Song of the Fossil Fuel Apologists.

Justify your statement with a fact. You carry on and on, but never produce anything worthy of thought.

Time to produce something more than bi-curious websites, George.

Aug 22, 2015
Hey onions, but I do know the difference between idiot and intelligent.
Now tell me, were you born that stupid or dropped as a baby?
Now if you want to have an intelligent chat, you would need to grow a brain.
That would be your important first step.

the absence of clear climate change in the United States --Hansen
http://www.giss.n...nsen_07/

Aug 22, 2015
2 year old???
You credit yourself with far too much intelligence onions.
I was responding at a level that you would understand.... idiot.

Aug 22, 2015
"Now tell me, were you born that stupid or dropped as a baby? Now if you want to have an intelligent chat, you would need to grow a brain. That would be your important first step."
-------------------------------------

Translation:

"We are insufficiently intelligent and excessively immature to debate a topic in science, so we will scream nasties across the playground!".

Aug 22, 2015
Antig does it again, linking to a 16 year old article.

http://www.giss.n...nsen_07/

Aug 22, 2015
the absence of clear climate change in the United States --Hansen
http://www.giss.n...nsen_07/

Read it and weep.

Aug 22, 2015
Now denglish responds - posting a 2012 article from the WSJ

Wrong. It was a demonstration that the NOAA fiddles with its data.

Today's article is about 2015 - global temps.

Wrong. It is about global 2015 global temps compared to the past. The past that Karl et. al. lowered in their attempts to "bust the pause". What do I mean? Immediately after lowering the past temperatures (thus making current temperatures look higher artificially), a claim went out that we were now in the hottest months in history. A history of NOAA creation.

there is no explanation regarding this assertion.

Wrong. It was a demonstration that the NOAA fiddles with their numbers, and thus cannot be trusted.

and no explanation of the revision

Pay attention to detail, please. It is all there.

"the hottest month" is an artifact of Karl et. al. and NOAA has been shown to change their numbers. Why is there no citation to the article? NOAA does not publish their numbers.

Aug 22, 2015
Why did the NOAA need to alter the land-sea numbers via the Karl et. al. paper?

Because along with the RSS measurements, HADCRUT4 was falsifying the CMIP5 models.

http://www.dailym...995.html

When it comes to NOAA, one cannot know what to believe anymore.

View the last clause of section III B.
http://www.cio.no...INAL.pdf

Would you trust someone that has:
1. Changed data that does not support their narrative.
2. Does not let you see their numbers.


Aug 22, 2015
The second link

Is broken. Nice work.

When those links were originally posted, they were demonstrating the difference between temperature readings of 2012, and what the same graph would look with 2013 data. It is called a graphical representation; in order for us to see, in pictures, that data was being changed.

Please, pay attention to detail. We're going over the same thing over and over. I shouldn't have to carry you like this.

total bullshit

Why, after Karl et. al. (lowering temperature readings of the past) did the NOAA immediately begin with claims of "highest temperatures on record"?

Why were those numbers changed (you may use the NOAA line, I want to see if you've even looked that far)?

Why are the numbers not visible for public view (you'll need to speculate here, like the rest of us)?

Aug 22, 2015
I smell a rat....

You're looking at two different things (please, pay attention to detail!), but good job! I think you did uncover a rat accidentally! You clicked on Guidelines, not Overview.

Ok, I will carry you again. Here we go. Please pay attention.

Go to this link:
http://www.cio.no...dex.html

Scroll all the way to the bottom, and click on "Information Quality"

Click on "Information Quality Overview" **NOT** "NOAA Information Quality Guidelines".

A pdf file will open. Scroll to III B.

Now, what do you think? Why would the NOAA have different things at different links? Could it be you're looking at two different things? Please, pay attention to detail.

Are you sure you have a Master's Degree? This was quite simple.

Aug 22, 2015
Because I copied and pasted your whole post - and links do not copy over.

Don't be lazy.

No - we are not going over the same thing over and over - you provided no explanation for the photo shopping of the NOAA graph.

Yes, I did. Look again. I will post what you missed. Here it is. It's coming. If you find yourself wondering why your dog's breath smells like dog food right now, STOP, here comes the passage! La:

When those links were originally posted, they were demonstrating the difference between temperature readings of 2012, and what the same graph would look with 2013 data. It is called a graphical representation; in order for us to see, in pictures, that data was being changed.

Please, don't make me carry you; its very annoying, and doesn't do anything for your credibility.


Aug 22, 2015
obviously photo shopped by Spencer

You assume a lot. Did you learn that in College? Actually, it was Watts.

Again - you are refuting a 2015 discussion of temperature data - with bullshit - not explained - from 2012.

Wrong. I have built a case that shows that the NOAA fiddles with numbers, and I closed by calling on the Karl et. al. paper that allowed the claim(s) of current temperatures being hottest to be possible via the lowering of past temperatures.

Please, pay attention.

A logical refutation on your part would not take the form of saying your opponent did not present what they claimed (especially when they clearly have), but would be a counter-presentation with data from your position.

Moving forward, how confident are you in the veracity of the Karl et. al. paper?


Aug 22, 2015
Because the first link that you provided is a general discussion of "Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for FY 2001

Wrong. It was the Information Quality Act Overview pulled directly from the NOAA website per the path I provided for you above.

And the second link that I went to is NOAA's own published guidelines.

You still don't get that they are two different things. You need to get past that block. Perhaps you should read both at the same time and try to compare them as you go. It should jump out at you right away that they are different.

Your link was NOT to NOAA's guidelines on information protection

Right. It was to the Information Act Quality Overview.

and obviously NOAA omitted the phrase in question deliberately

I don't think so. They are two different things.

You are a fraud......

Why?


Aug 22, 2015
Yes, I did
No you did not. I re-posted your entire comment - and there was no explanation of the photo shopping of the graph - none......

*sigh* This is very odd. Ok. Here it is...one...more...time...

When those links were originally posted, they were demonstrating the difference between temperature readings of 2012, and what the same graph would look with 2013 data. It is called a graphical representation; in order for us to see, in pictures, that data was being changed.


Aug 22, 2015
No you have not....

I wish I didn't have to. In fact, I don't need to; the NOAA has done it for me.

Are you familiar with "Possible Artifacts of Data Biases In The Recent Global Surface Warming Hiatus"?

That in itself is proof that the NOAA fiddles with numbers, and is the instrument allowing the claims of "hottest month on record".

Aug 22, 2015
From the article:
"The world is warming. It is continuing to warm. That is being shown time and time again in our data,"

Let's take a look at what the data said before the Karl et. al. paper:

http://www.dailym...995.html

Bookmark that one. These will be harder and harder to find as the world moves forward with the new fiddled numbers.

Luckily, RSS doesn't fiddle, so we can go straight to them:
http://woodfortre...15/trend

In terms of geologic timescales, it cannot be denied that the earth is warming. What *must* be questioned is why. When facts are changed to avoid a theory falsification and to meet a narrative, what should we think?

Aug 22, 2015
Shorter @denglish: NASA statistics involve doing statistics. J'accuse!

I don't know why you're bothering @greenonions.

Aug 22, 2015
The Iran negotiating team has finished surrendering to Iran and can now be reassigned to surrendering to climate change and lifting carbon sanctions.

Aug 22, 2015
I think we should send you to deal with them.

Aug 22, 2015
Yeah, phil, Obama is taking away the chance for another Republican War, this time in Iran. Of course, the fevered folk are not the ones who would go, they are the instigators, the profit-seekers, the spleen-venters.

Aug 22, 2015
@denglish
Using an article from the Daily Mail, based on a paper by Ross McKitrick, is not really a good idea.
https://en.wikipe...cKitrick
An economist and a creationist. Not even an ex-weatherman.
http://blog.hotwh...ick.html
(couple of years old, still relevant IMO)

Aug 22, 2015
Aren't you glad I had you monitoring thr temperatures day by day?
You know, that it's been a darn cold June and July, and August is shaping up coldly as well.
Keep track.

Aug 22, 2015
It certainly was straight from the NOAA website - but it was NOT the NOAA guidelines

?
their guidelines omitted the phrase in question - clearly showing that they did not consider that phrase appropriate for their guidelines.

Right. It was the Overview.
Pulling bullshit from wattsup - does not make it not bullshit.

Your emotion missed the double negative. Are you sure you have a Master's Degree?
I don't know why you're bothering @greenonions.

Mommy, make the bad man stop!
the profit-seekers

Do you have a moleststache? How many children do you send to bi-curious websites?
Using an article from the Daily Mail, based on a paper by Ross McKitrick, is not really a good idea.

I suppose you prefer The Guardian, but that doesn't matter. What I was doing was showing the HADCRUT4 measurements before Karl et. al.


Aug 22, 2015
C'mon guys, which one of you have the guts to step up and put out?

The Karl et. al. paper makes the claims of "hottest July on record" possible.

Yes or no?

Show your work.

I find it interesting how there is this community of people who are so deluded

Show, don't tell. You must have learned this while you got your Master's unless you didn...n/m, too easy.

Aug 22, 2015
Green: I am with Lee. Deng is ignorant and biased.. You won't be able to teach him anything. His argument is that no one can get to the NOAA data. It is a common argument that secret manipulations are being made by the "climate conspirators." Of course all of the data are available:

http://www.surfac...databank

https://www.ncdc....a-access

http://www.realcl...sources/

Deng: Now it is up to you to show us where "bad" data are being produced, how they differ (in some nefarious way) from the raw set (both raw and analyzed should be available), and who the coordinating conspirators are.

Of course Deng is too lazy and ignorant to do anything useful with these data so we will not hear a peep from him about "missing data." His conjecture that the data are being hidden from him is falsified.

Deng if I have missed a data source you think is important let me know and I will point you to it.


Aug 22, 2015
I intended for the double negative.

mmm hmm

Yes - I have a masters degree

mmm hmm... so does gkam. Do you have a moleststache too?

by trying to lead people to believe that NOAA has a phrase in their own guidelines - that they don't have.

How many times do you need to be told that it isn't the Guidelines; it is the Overview. Wait. I just figured it out. You have no experience in operations management, and can't tell the difference. Anyway...you are looking at two different things. If you had a post-graduate degree worth anything, you would be able to discern that. I wonder if NOAA is depending on people not being able to dig one level deeper, and arrogantly make it the first link available...a really weird inside joke.

how you tried to refute 2015 global temperature data

Are you familiar with "Possible Artifacts of Data Biases In The Recent Global Surface Warming Hiatus"?

What do you think of it?


Aug 23, 2015
Are you familiar with "Possible Artifacts of Data Biases In The Recent Global Surface Warming Hiatus"?

What do you think of it?

If you're for real, you'll address this. You have all night. Good night.

Aug 23, 2015
goracle
Thanks. I was starting to think it was just me.


No no - you have plenty of company there - lots of other people don't know the difference between climate and weather - and are happy to advertise the fact.


Yep thats why he named himself after a gorilla, evidently he has no intention of denying that fact either lol... his other goons, donglish, small willieward and shoot the potty, enforces his presence by making sure everyone know how intellectually deficient they all are, makes for great comedy though... :D


**facepalm****

Aug 23, 2015
@denglish
"I suppose you prefer The Guardian, but that doesn't matter."
Printed media is as biased as much online media. I like facts, not opinions.

"What I was doing was showing the HADCRUT4 measurements before Karl et. al."

No, what you said was this;
"Let's take a look at what the data said before the Karl et. al. paper:"
Then you linked to an article in a tabloid, based on a paper by an economist/creationist, who has, as far as I can see, no qualifications in physics, meteorology or climatology.
How you can believe this supports your argument is baffling.

Aug 23, 2015
Deny, deny, deny, . . . Song of the Fossil Fuel Apologists.

Justify your statement with a fact. You carry on and on, but never produce anything worthy of thought.

Time to produce something more than bi-curious websites, George.


You never produce anything at all, you've been caught hanging ou at those sites so don't be so shy to admit it.. ;)

Aug 23, 2015
2 year old???
You credit yourself with far too much intelligence onions.
I was responding at a level that you would understand.... idiot.


Gorilla eagerly trying to use his 2 braincells to come up with uneducated answers to get that bannana, (and he's doing well so far) come and get it :D Well said GO.

Aug 23, 2015
"Now tell me, were you born that stupid or dropped as a baby? Now if you want to have an intelligent chat, you would need to grow a brain. That would be your important first step."
-------------------------------------

Translation:

"We are insufficiently intelligent and excessively immature to debate a topic in science, so we will scream nasties across the playground!".


Lol. you guys are cracking me up with the good comments today... well said :D
Gorilla earned his name today and will keep bolster his baboon reputation as always... you go monkey... :D

Aug 23, 2015
Antig does it again, linking to a 16 year old article.

http://www.giss.n...nsen_07/

Woohoo, the idiocy of gorilla clown has no end as the world sees himself rubbing his reputation further down the rabbit hole :D

Aug 23, 2015
cont - once again - here is your entire post - this time with the links restored - as you are sadly not even ing for yourself.
Let's take a look at some other things: http://www.wsj.co...86369820
Here's what it means: NOAA can't get their data straight. This is probably why there was no paper cited in the article.

Notice that you provide no explanation for the photoshopping of the graph - that was present in the WSJ article - and then obviously photo shopped by Spencer. You provide no explanation for that photo shopping - changing of the data. No discussion of where the new numbers come from. Again - you are refuting a 2015 discussion of temperature data - with bullshit - not explained - from 2012. Pathetic!


Lol the jokes keeps getting funnier, linking to photoshopped graphs, taking it to new heights their lies, dumbness and stupidity Donglish and Gorilla eagerly boasting their stupidity...Again.. :)

Aug 23, 2015
Aren't you glad I had you monitoring thr temperatures day by day?
You know, that it's been a darn cold June and July, and August is shaping up coldly as well.
Keep track.


Aaaah watermonkey joining in today i see, show us how strong those 2 braincells are, i know it won't be hard for you... ;)

Aug 23, 2015
Aren't you glad I had you monitoring thr temperatures day by day?
You know, that it's been a darn cold June and July, and August is shaping up coldly as well.
Keep track.


Aaaah watermonkey joining in today i see, show us how strong those 2 braincells are, i know it won't be hard for you... ;)

Aug 23, 2015
Green: I am with Lee. Deng is ignorant and biased.. You won't be able to teach him anything. His argument is that no one can get to the NOAA data. It is a common argument that secret manipulations are being made by the "climate conspirators." Of course all of the data are available:

http://www.surfac...databank

Deng: Now it is up to you to show us where "bad" data are being produced, how they differ (in some nefarious way) from the raw set (both raw and analyzed should be available), and who the coordinating conspirators are.

Of course Deng is too lazy and.. we will not hear a peep from him about "missing data." His conjecture that the data are being hidden from him is falsified.

Deng if I have missed a data source you think is important let me know and I will point you to it.


ahhhhahaha.... too funny, donglish cornering himself up on another tree branch again, just like his cousin gorrilacle you deserve your bannana today ! :D

Aug 23, 2015
Re: denglish, cherry picks & has nil idea of Robust Statistics
https://en.wikipe...atistics

Acts like ubavontuba, similarities abound. Key issue they both fail, other than statistics/means/medians etc are failures to understand key settled physics
https://en.wikipe...transfer

further detailed re greenhouse gases here
https://en.wikipe..._forcing

Its well proven & not refuted. So question arises Where is the heat going, answer is obvious to anyone who has done highschool physics - the material with the higher specific heat/mass. That is, Oceans !

denglish's reporting is an outright lie, his naive attempt to pursue propaganda here, eg my last post
http://phys.org/n...ght.html

denglish FAILs to address the warning by RSS
http://www.remss....eratures

ie Last sentence of 1st para

Aug 23, 2015
verkle the uneducated religious fanatic is at it again
Yaaaawn....the alarmists are at it again
See my earlier post verkle...

Get an education (in Physics) verkle.

Learn something useful so you are not a blind untinking robotic follower describing a claimed deity who acts out of insanity just like an all encompassing punishing Devil causing all to suffer for ever because it set up obvious entrapment of a young woman he never educated in Guile & never offered any dialectic to care for its creation.

Incest, child abuse & absence are the hall mark of your god verkle ie a BAD parent !!!

Tell us what is the best most accurate reliable method as to how your deity communicates verkle ?

Learn Physics !

Aug 23, 2015
I was not the one being deceptive - you were.

Ok, For some reason you don't get that they are two different things, or won't get it. Noted.

How you can believe this

Did you notice the HADCRUT4 measurements in the graph? What are they saying?

HeloMenelo and Mike certainly are riled up. I suppose its still a good thing to keep the Daft Fury on ignore.

Where did denglish dig up his/her misquote regarding NOAA's protection of the "confidentiality" of data?

From the INFORMATION QUALITY ACT OVERVIEW.
http://www.cio.no...INAL.pdf

July just broke all records

After the past numbers were adjusted down.

global warming continues it's creep forward

Not according to the troposphere:
http://woodfortre...15/trend

to set grass fires everywhere

Fires don't start where there is no fuel.

Aug 23, 2015
Onions, why are you ignoring my question to you re: your knowledge of: "Possible Artifacts of Data Biases In The Recent Global Surface Warming Hiatus"?

This is the paper that led to the changes of past temperature readings that gave us the Hottest July on record. Immediately after the changes, the announcements came out.

You should be very familiar with it, as it is the instrument leading AGWs into the future.

Don't ignore it, I'd like to know what you think of it.

Deng: Now it is up to you to show us where "bad" data are being produced, how they differ (in some nefarious way) from the raw set (both raw and analyzed should be available), and who the coordinating conspirators are.

Karl et. al.
Certainly you know about it.

Of course Deng is too lazy and ignorant

Why is the AGW crowd so hung up on insult? Since when is juvenile behavior something that lends credibility to one's position?


Aug 23, 2015
cherry picks....blah...blah....blah...
--Muttering Mike
Crikey, it's Muttering Mike back from his walkabout and still pretending to know science.
Tell us Muttering Mike, when did man-made GloBULL warming start?

Aug 23, 2015
I was not the one being deceptive - you were.


HeloMenelo and Mike certainly are riled up. I suppose its still a good thing to keep the Daft Fury on ignore.

to set grass fires everywhere

Fires don't start where there is no fuel.


fortunately the world reads all the comments, only do nglish and his goons are so stupid to ignore countles of scientific evidence, and ridiculing themselves right here on Physorg, more fun i could not have asked for :D

Aug 23, 2015
Note that Homonids didn't evolve until well after the PETM. And modern humans didn't evolve until the Pleistocene.

It doesn't matter. The earth does what it wants to do, regardless of humans, or any other living thing.

What a roach of a thread. Bitter insulting back and forth over.
Any self-respecting skeptic should be able to rip the insulters limb from limb in this one with facts. You guys are wasting your time trading insults.



Not bitter at all, pure entertaining fun :D
Trading years of scientific evidence for understanding by your 2 braincells did not do the trick, so insulting comes naturually as it takes a special kind of dumb baboon to repeatedly knock his head against a brick wall continually posting pseudoscience, bogus links and to top it all, thinking he would beable to convince Real scientists that his faked conspiracy evidence is real. dumber one cannot be :D

Aug 23, 2015
cherry picks....blah...blah....blah...
--Muttering Mike
Crikey, it's Muttering Mike back from his walkabout and still pretending to know science.
Tell us Muttering Mike, when did man-made GloBULL warming start?


yet another 2 out of 5 rating for gorilla here i see, Mike's back alright, spraying all the dungbeatles with pesticide, and as always, ridiculing gorilla gorillicles and small donglishes as swiftly as ever, now's the time to get your stupid comments in clownies, soon it will be exposed, yet again.. and the world is watching it unfold everytime.. :D come to daddy... wer'e wating...ching ching... ;)

Aug 23, 2015
Re: denglish, cherry picks & has nil idea of Robust Statistics
https://en.wikipe...atistics


Ahhh good one Mike, a cleansweep right there, good start, now... lets see the monkeys dance. :)

Aug 23, 2015
@greenonions
denglish
Not according to the troposphere:


And there you have it in a nutshell. You do not understand that one piece of the system - does not reflect the entire system. So - let's look at the long term picture regarding the troposphere - http://woodfortre...15/trend

Very much in keeping with the consensus science regarding the warming of our climate.

The heart of the problem is at the surface of the planet, I do not understand why denglish insist so much with the lower troposphere temperatures which is more about the climate at 2 to 3 kilometers above us. The physics of the CO2 green house effect implies an attenuation of the emissivity of the atmosphere much greater at ground level than higher up in the air.

Aug 23, 2015
Why did the NOAA need to alter the land-sea numbers via the Karl et. al. paper?
WOW
i don't know... maybe lets actually READ the freakin paper and see??
most decade-to century-scale time series of atmospheric data have been adversely impacted by inhomogeneities caused by, for example, changes in instrumentation, station moves, changes in the local environment such as urbanization, or the introduction of different observing practices like a new formula for calculating mean daily temperature or different observation times. If these inhomogeneities are not accounted for properly, the results of climate analyses using these data can be erroneous
http://www.climat...1998.pdf

so, deniers prefer the bad data that can show WORSE warming or bad trends (meaning not accurate) over the actual readings and good data!

WHY IS THAT?

Aug 23, 2015
Actually, it was Watts
you promoted a lie, then you assume responsibility for said lie. that is how it works- like your links to your dr fraud and other debunked stupidity
I have built a case that shows that the NOAA fiddles with numbers, and I closed by calling on the Karl et. al. paper
except that you didn't actually READ the Karl paper, otherwise you would know it is actually referenced as
T.C. PETERSON ET AL
you can find that on the headers of each page after the title/abstract page: see http://www.climat...1998.pdf
of course, that is how MOST papers work in science, which is why you couldn't see it, or refused to acknowledge it. it requires literacy skills and reading, something you are ignoring while using only conspiracy ideation sites

this is why you can't understand reality, because you rely upon liars and frauds for information instead of actually reading the science/research

Aug 23, 2015
RSS doesn't fiddle... http://woodfortre...15/trend
lets look at that, shall we? (you can use your original link if you can find it)
NOAA/EPA/WMO all use a 30 year time period for a trend in CLIMATE because it tells more than a short time span
The classical period is 3 decades, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO)
http://epa.gov/cl...y.html#C
lets adjust YOUR graph to reflect this time span: http://woodfortre...15/trend
whoops! perhaps you can notify watts or your dr? by sharing intentionally wrong data because you didn't actually do any research or learn anything about statistics, science, methodology or research what is actually published out there, that means, in your own words
you are a deceitful fraud
you labeled yourself, not i
just remember that

too bad i am on mute
at least the scientifically literate can read and see what is real vs your posts!

Aug 23, 2015
Aren't you glad I had you monitoring thr temperatures day by day?
You know, that it's been a darn cold June and July, and August is shaping up coldly as well.
Keep track.
@wp
just like a true scientifically illiterate poster to confuse WEATHER with CLIMATE
thanks for providing us with a laugh, though

.
The Karl et. al. paper makes the claims...
1- no, it is the T.C. PETERSON ET AL paper- please read the actual paper and link above (of you are able to find it)
OR
someone can re-link it to you again for your perusal

2- please feel free to link/reference the page, graphic and/or figure in said paper which "demonstrate" this claim you are continuing to assert


Aug 23, 2015
O.. man this is soooo Good ! :D

Eagerly awaiting their replies so i can start another good round of fun pokin' It ain't getting better than this :D :D

Aug 23, 2015
Are you familiar with "Possible Artifacts of Data Biases In The Recent Global Surface Warming Hiatus"?
i can honestly state that you are NOT able to read this study, otherwise you would not be using it as a reference... see also: TC Peterson et al
by all means, you should read the above study in SciMag, starting at PG 3 of 10 in the supplemental materials, titled: Data and Analysis Method
maybe you can get watts or your dr to send you a copy?
This is the paper that led to the changes of past temperature readings that gave us the Hottest July on record
no, actually Peterson et al was published in 1998 and predated the need to review and adjust temps (see also- the Peterson paper and it's 3rd author, maybe you will see why it is MORE important than your delusional beliefs)

VALIDATION is a powerful tool in science and it's methodology

Aug 23, 2015
Why is the AGW crowd so hung up on insult? Since when is juvenile behavior something that lends credibility to one's position?
lets examine that for a minute... you want science, and so you get published studies from reputable journals that i linked...
but you ignore those studies and reply with OPINION, blogs, debunked conjecture and a host of conspiracy theory ideation sites
people read your posts and denigrate you for not being able to procure or link any actual scientific data to support your position, so you choose to obfuscate with more lies, like above
then people read the studies (because they can comprehend what they read) and see where you are being "intellectually dishonest" and blatantly lying in some posts... then you denigrate those posting studies and refuse to address their questions, but require others to produce scientific studies
then ignore the science

and you want to know why people make fun of you?
REALLY?

Aug 23, 2015
@d, your "possible artifacts..." study in full: http://www.scienc...469.full
Previous analyses of global temperature trends during the first decade of the 21st century seemed to indicate that warming had stalled. This allowed critics of the idea of global warming to claim that concern about climate change was misplaced. Karl et al. now show that temperatures did not plateau as thought and that the supposed warming "hiatus" is just an artifact of earlier analyses. Warming has continued at a pace similar to that of the last half of the 20th century, and the slowdown was just an illusion
editors summary

you failed to read the whole thing, didn't you?

again, see DATA AND ANALYSIS METHOD in the supplement and by all means, point out where in the study AND the supplements we (and scientists, including NOAA, EPA, WMO, etc) got it all wrong

THANKS

Aug 23, 2015
"More tax money being wasted by the progressive liberal socialist bogus weather reports."
------------------------------------
Yeah, Fritz, we could have had another Republican War by now.

Aug 23, 2015
The heart of the problem is at the surface of the planet, I do not understand why denglish insist so much with the lower troposphere temperatures which is more about the climate at 2 to 3 kilometers above us.

Because after Karl et. al. I have not found a way to trust the land/sea measurements.

So - let's look at the long term picture regarding the troposphere -

I have never denied that in the long term, global warming is real. My message is that over the last 18 years, it has stopped, falsifying the theories that we currently seem to believe in most. Take that graph and start it at 1997. It shows cooling. Before Karl, so did HADCRUT4.

Very much in keeping with the consensus science regarding the warming of our climate.

You're going to have to point out where consensus trumps observation in the scientific process.

I trust the consensus of science

Which is not part of the scientific process.


Aug 23, 2015
Because I am not interested in engaging with you on that subject.

I think you'll find your intellectual honesty challenged more than you care to on that subject.

Why was the data changed to fit the narrative? Before the change, why did the data show cooling; to match the RSS measurements?

I know you're not in operations, but people that present one thing and then change it to meet their story are not trusted when important matters are at stake.

Holy Daft Fury, eight ignored posts in a row! "Brevity is the soul of wit".

Immediately after the Karl papers, the cry went out that we were experiencing the hottest months ever. *After* the numbers were changed.

Perhaps you grew up in a place where you could leave your bike out at night. I didn't.

Yeah, Fritz, we could have had another Republican War by now.

This is the same person that says the US sold nuclear secrets to N Korea and Pakistan. Liberalism is a mental disorder.

Aug 23, 2015
Because after Karl et. al. I have not found a way to trust the land/sea measurements
of course, that is because you refuse to acknowledge Peterson et al, which is where Karl is getting his start and deriving info and the need to address the temp issue

but i doubt you will see the correlation, much like you refuse to acknowledge the bulk of the science out there
...point out where consensus trumps observation...
no one ever said it did
what IS consensus in your opinion?
because when people talk about the "consensus" of scientists in AGW, they refer to the overwhelming evidence that all points one way. NOT a vote to see where the bulk of scientists believe, but a consensus of evidence which is all separate, individually taken, and collectively points to AGW and warming

THAT is consensus in the science of climate!

it is also why you have NO evidence other than obtuse proclamations, blogs, intellectual dishonesty, blatant outright fabrications and the like

Aug 23, 2015
Because after Karl et. al. I have not found a way to trust the land/sea measurements of course, that is because you refuse to acknowledge Peterson et al, which is where Karl is gett.....
no one ever said it did
what IS consensus in your opinion?...

believe, but a consensus of evidence which is all separate, individually taken, and collectively points to AGW and warming

THAT is consensus in the science of climate!

it is also why you have NO evidence other than obtuse proclamations, blogs, intellectual dishonesty, blatant outright fabrications and the like


Ahhh did not have to wait long... donglish bafooning himself to the next level, c'mon monkey post your thumbsucked evidence and potty site references, we like all of them to be exposed like all the rest you posted on all other topics :D

Aug 23, 2015
denglish, I am not going to play your silly game of you repeating the same lies over and over. I corrected you at least three times, yet you persist in bad-mouthing us with falsehoods.

You have shown yourself to have deficient character, which is why you are here instead of somewhere fruitful.

And before you ask, I am retired, and already picked Zin this morning for a friend, 07:00-10:30.

Aug 23, 2015
denglish, I am not going to play your silly game of you repeating the same lies over and over. I corrected you at least three times, yet you persist in bad-mouthing us with falsehoods.

You have shown yourself to have deficient character, which is why you are here instead of somewhere fruitful.

And before you ask, I am retired, and already picked Zin this morning for a friend, 07:00-10:30.


Clearly everyone knows it, all but himself... lots of fun poking this little clown :D

Aug 23, 2015
...You have shown yourself to have deficient character, which is why you are here instead of somewhere fruitful.....

That's truly rich coming from a verified Pathological Liar.
The jury is in gskam and you've been found wanting.

Aug 23, 2015
denglish
My message is that over the last 18 years, it has stopped,


But it has not stopped. So you are wrong. 2014 was the hottest year on record. 2015 is shaping up to be hotter. You are wrong. So we don't need to go any further do we? You do not know what you are talking about. The oceans continue to rise. The oceans continue to warm. All the indicators are clear - it has not stopped. There does not need to be anything else said on your opinion of reality - cuz it is nonsense.


Donngggg !... pounded right in the nuts...again...and again...lol...

Aug 23, 2015
...You have shown yourself to have deficient character, which is why you are here instead of somewhere fruitful.....

That's truly rich coming from a verified Pathological Liar.
The jury is in gskam and you've been found wanting.


aaaahhh gorilla monkey swings out on the branch, a monkey trying to insult a respected person... now now monkey go eat those bannanas i gave you, your fellow donglish monkey will teach you how to peel them... soon... ;)

Aug 23, 2015
"That's truly rich coming from a verified Pathological Liar."
----------------------------------

Oh, that's it, is it? "The Chant of the Ottos"?

"Pathological Liar"

Screaming across the playground means you lost the argument.

Aug 23, 2015
But it has not stopped. So you are wrong.

Not according to RSS, which wasn't affected by the Karl paper.

2014 was the hottest year on record. 2015 is shaping up to be hotter.

Before or after the Karl paper? Answer the question.

The oceans continue to rise. The oceans continue to warm.

Yes. This happens as the Earth leaves ice ages.

btw Onions, Mother Nature doesn't care about any consequence of her actions. Sorry the cute furries are threatened, that is the cosmos at work; nothing personal.

cuz it is nonsense.

cuz? Really? cuz? Run out of characters, or do you live on twitter?

denglish, I am not going to play your silly game of you repeating the same lies over and over.

You linked me to a gay website, without making sure it was appropriate. You also lie about everything in your "real" life. At best, you are careless, and thus have no credibility.

Aug 23, 2015
"That's truly rich coming from a verified Pathological Liar."
----------------------------------

Oh, that's it, is it? "The Chant of the Ottos"?

"Pathological Liar"

Screaming across the playground means you lost the argument.

Just another lie and your only consolation.
Here, read about yourself.
http://blogs.psyc...al-liar/

Aug 23, 2015
But it has not stopped. So you are wrong.
blee blaaa blow ..Answer the question.....blee blaaa blow ..Answer the question.

You linked me to a gay website, without making sure it was appropriate. You also lie about everything in your "real" life. At best, you are careless, and thus have no credibility.


Your credibility ranks so far on the negative side not even warpdrive could ever attempt to bring it back, i know admitting to hanging out on those bi-sites struck a nerve, but it's ok now, everyone knows don't you feel better now that everyone knows ?

Aug 23, 2015
"That's truly rich coming from a verified Pathological Liar."
----------------------------------

Oh, that's it, is it? "The Chant of the Ottos"?

"Pathological Liar"

Screaming across the playground means you lost the argument.

Just another lie and your only consolation.
Here, read about yourself.
http://blogs.psyc...al-liar/


Gorilla's been up to nasty i see, we shot a candid picture of you... ;)

http://funnyjunk....angutan/

Aug 23, 2015
But it has not stopped. So you are wrong.

Not according to RSS, which wasn't affected by the Karl paper.

2014 was the hottest year on record. 2015 is shaping up to be hotter.

Before or after the Karl paper? Answer the question.

The oceans continue to rise. The oceans continue to warm.

Yes. This happens as the Earth leaves ice ages.

btw Onions, Mother Nature doesn't care about any consequence of her actions. Sorry the cute furries are threatened, that is the cosmos at work; nothing personal.



Aaah thats better :D ....
Your credibility ranks so far on the negative side not even warpdrive could ever attempt to bring it back, i know admitting to hanging out on those bi-sites struck a nerve, but it's ok now, everyone knows don't you feel better now that everyone knows ?

Aug 23, 2015
The question does not make any sense. 2014 was the hottest year on record - period.

After the Karl papers cooled the past. So, not period... unless you trust people that change things to match narratives without any second thought; which is also known as naivety.

Tack on the Conflict of Interest...no AGW, no existence for the IPCC, one that understands the future is built on good decision making is forced to be skeptical.

The data is in - and globally - 2014 was the hottest year on record.

Do you know the land/sea measurements showed no warming until the Karl paper, and that the claims of hottest on record was made immediately after the data was changed?

If it bothers you - I don't care....

It doesn't bother me, but it certainly is indicative of a certain intellectual mindset. One that amongst people that wear big-boy pants, isn't regarded as credible.

Jeepers Menelo, three posts of ignore-fail? You couldn't' do it in one?

Aug 23, 2015
you show us the long term trend - before the Karl papers "cooled the past" as you assert

Here you go. Check out the first graph.
http://www.dailym...995.html]http://www.dailym...995.html[/url]

No - I don't know that - please support your statement with data. I want to see the plot of land sea measurements - before the Karl paper - showing no warming.

Here you go. Check out the first graph.
http://www.dailym...995.html]http://www.dailym...995.html[/url]

Bet you can't produce the data.

Don't worry- its OK.

Smile - perhaps you should look back over several threads that you have been active on - and see how much credibility you have.

Making an argument against proper language. Revealing.


Aug 23, 2015
Your links are broken denglish....

You're right. No idea what happened. Here you go:

http://www.dailym...995.html

Strange interpretation there - revealing! I was just commenting on how - based on the comments of many many others here - your credibility is in the toilet...

That's nice.


Aug 23, 2015
@denglish
Daily mail again.
This is getting as bad as your repetitive linking to Roy's uninformative graphic. Honestly, you really don't seem to get this whole credible evidence thing. Have you forgotten, McKitrick has no qualifications in any field relevant to climatology?

Aug 23, 2015
After the Karl papers cooled the past
this is like saying that the Newtonian physics allows you to reach the speed of light, and since GR/SR was published, then we should still be able to reach the speed of light regardless of what GR/SR says because Newtonian physics is more real than GR/SR
when a scientific study finds something, then is validated, then it is not a matter of "cooling the past" as much as it is making adjustments because we now comprehend the problems and other inadequacies of our measuring system
Even wonder how they calibrate the satellites (and insure their accuracy)? besides the basics done in a lab, they had to actually TEST them on the Earth to insure that they were accurate enough... that means a physical measurement
THAT should be enough to make anyone listen, BTW, and stop ignoring physical measurements over sat

you are ignoring data so that you don't have to admit your delusion
that is all you are doing

Aug 23, 2015
Your links are broken denglish....
@Greenonions
try reading the same argument he is having with furlong here: http://phys.org/n...ght.html

you can almost copy/paste furlongs arguments to deng... with any luck, you will be "muted" and join the ranks of those who proved him to be a liar and posting fraudulent data intentionally
Honestly, you really don't seem to get this whole credible evidence thing
@TehDog
he never HAS used credible evidence... the only thing he EVER used was links to fraudulent sites with poor, proven false maths or to debunked links...

this is how the mind of an addict works - you can see the EXACT same arguments on COPS if you watch it!
no matter HOW much evidence you show, proof given right there on camera, nor demonstrate that it really was their purse/car/cup/pocket the drugs/whatever came out of... they will simply deny it all, even when blatantly caught in a lie

proof above with dung!

Aug 24, 2015
Bet you can't produce the data.
Don't worry- its OK.


Nope it's not, this is a science site, or don't you know ? Scientific evidence is what counts, and you can't produce any at all, all you've posted over the years is from bogus anti climate sites and of course the one's you thumbsucked up, that's why you look like such an idiot and thats why we are having so much fun.. :D


Aug 24, 2015

you can almost copy/paste furlongs arguments to deng... with any luck, you will be "muted" and join the ranks of those who proved him to be a liar and posting fraudulent data intentionally
Honestly, you really don't seem to get this whole credible evidence thing @TehDog
he never HAS used credible evidence... the only thing he EVER used was links to fraudulent sites with poor, proven false maths or to debunked links...

this is how the mind of an addict works - you can see the EXACT same arguments on COPS if you watch it!
no matter HOW much evidence you show, proof given right there on camera, nor demonstrate that it really was their purse/car/cup/pocket the drugs/whatever came out of... they will simply deny it all, even when blatantly caught in a lie

proof above with dung!


It's a mental disorder, his like one of those world war fighters from the war era still hiding in the woods on an island for 60 years thinking the war is still at large.

Aug 24, 2015
you have picked a news article from the Daily Mail

No, I picked a news article that had pre-Karl HADCRUT readings. You did see the woodfortrees graph, yes? it must be credible, because you used it too.

And denglish - if you plug the numbers in yourself

You are using post-Karl numbers.

You're ignoring the difference that the Karl paper makes.

You are a fraud - and an idiot - for not caring enough about science as to post that kind of bullshit.

Insult is the last refuge of an exhausted intellect.

I think you need to dig deeper into the Karl paper, and recognize that there is a difference between measurements that occurred before the paper (measurements that showed the hiatus), and the measurements that happened after the paper; AKA "the Pause Buster".

You are ignoring that point.

Daily mail again.

No, a link to an increasingly rare representation of pre-Karl HADCRUT4 readings.

Stumpy and Menelo, you're still muted; relax.


Aug 24, 2015
"That's truly rich coming from a verified Pathological Liar."
----------------------------------

Oh, that's it, is it? "The Chant of the Ottos"?

"Pathological Liar"

Screaming across the playground means you lost the argument.
That includes most everybody here who has followed your posts.

Youre not only a pathological liar, youre an incompetent one.

Aug 24, 2015
as well as and idiot and a fraud

Insult is the last refuge of an exhausted intellect.

I read the article several times - it said nothing about pre or post Karl readings.

And it wouldn't; the article was written before the Karl paper. The HADCRUT4 graph is what the measurements said before the paper. The paper changed the numbers. You should read up on it. It was a very important event in climatology.

We are using the accepted data.

This is true. However, it should be known that the accepted data was produced to remove the hiatus result.

2014 was the warmest year on record

After the record was changed.

2015 shaping up to be warmer

It may, who knows! Everyone knows we're in a warming epoch; it wouldn't surprise me.

produce the counter data - write some papers

Nah, I play too much golf for that... when I'm not working at my other jobs. I'll just point it out here and be content.

Aug 24, 2015
@denglish
"Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature record"
http://www-users....faq.html

"Science publishes new NOAA analysis: Data show no recent slowdown in global warming"
http://www.noaane...ars.html

"Daily Mail touts McKitrick study using biased methods to question climate change"
http://www.climat...methods/

All good reads, plenty of useful info and links, and you will almost certainly not bother to read them.

Everyone else, enjoy :)

Aug 24, 2015
Thanks Dog, I did read them. To not read them would be intellectually dishonest. And, I learned something!

I have to admit, the third link didn't do much for me. Attacking a person doesn't seem as fruitful as discussing the data, which was presented as the HADCRUT4 graph.

Here's one for you to not read. :-)
http://judithcurr...warming/


Aug 24, 2015
Oops, forgot one;
"NOAA temperature record updates and the 'hiatus'"
http://www.realcl...-hiatus/

Aug 24, 2015
To not read them would be intellectually dishonest
why doesn't someone ask him why he refuses to read the REST of the climate science literature? LMFAO
this is called distraction/red herring- you can see the same thing here: http://phys.org/n...ght.html
the third link didn't do much for me. Attacking a person doesn't seem as fruitful as discussing the data
this fascinates me... for everyone else, this comment is in re: http://www.climat...-041.pdf
AND
http://www.climat...methods/

what i see: they are attacking the METHODOLOGY and how they intentionally used "predatory publishers", the SAME failed, debunked tactics, ignores evidence, statistical methods that are not rigorous, and RE LINKS the previous failed repeated arguments!

to be cont'd

Aug 24, 2015
cont'd
the previous repeated FAILED debunked arguments:
http://www.climat...alposts/
AND
http://www.climat...ause.pdf

IOW- they're not attacking a person, but the methodology which has REPEATEDLY been demonstrated as FALSE, debunked, whatever you want to call it!
so what does the denier dung call that? he calls it "Attacking a person"... how is proving that the person repeated a DEBUNKED and FAILED argument, using the SAME tactics and methodology attacking them?
they even PROVIDE PROOF!!!!

like i said elsewhere: this is ADDICT mentality
no matter how much proof you give, they actually believe that sticking to the blatant known lie that is already proven false is BETTER (somehow) than accepting reality and facing the truth

conspiracy ideation and delusional Dunning-Kruger mixed with psychopathy and narcissism at its finest

Aug 24, 2015
Yes I did read that while researching the subject.
JC says;
"My bottom line assessment is this. I think that uncertainties in global surface temperature anomalies is substantially understated."
So, opinion, no maths...

"So while I'm sure this latest analysis from NOAA will be regarded as politically useful for the Obama administration, I don't regard it as a particularly useful contribution to our scientific understanding of what is going on."
Politics, what a surprise.

Followed by stuff from the Cato Institute. I was not impressed.

Aug 24, 2015
@Stumpy
Thanks for following up on "the third link didn't do much for me. Attacking a person doesn't seem as fruitful as discussing the data"
I didn't see any attacks either, possibly a slight dig at the radians/degrees oops moment, but even that's factual, not opinion.


Aug 24, 2015
Here's one for you to not read. :-)
http://judithcurr...warming/
lets discuss CREDIBILITY... and lets also talk about what constitutes evidence...
first off, re: curry-
http://thinkprogr...science/

so, we can see that she is not actually a very credible person, especially given a libelous claim printed publicly... but lets ignore that for a moment
Lets talk about CREDIBLE EVIDENCE
WHAT does she bring to persuade others?
my quick initial reactions
note- NOT a studies reading, but there is more
In my opinion
I am also unconvinced
My bottom line assessment is this. I think that...
no where is there anything like EVIDENCE... simply CONJECTURE!
lets continue
CATO comments
GWPF comments
JC summary
need i say more?
NOT ONE PIECE OF REFUTING EVIDENCE... just COMMENTS which are attempting to dissuade against the EVIDENCE in the paper
2Bcont'd

Aug 24, 2015
Thanks for following up
@TehDog
you're welcome.. i am continuing with his curry link too

CONT'D @dung
From Mashable:
Post at WUWT by Anthony Watts and Bob Tisdale
From Carbon Brief:
again, we can see that people are willing to ATTACK the paper, but where is the evidence?
WHERE is the reputable paper published in a peer reviewed journal which refutes this PUBLISHED PAPER who has PEER REVIEW as well as demonstrates with EVIDENCE (BTW- that is also OBSERVED)????

THIS is the real crux of the matter, IMHO

the level of evidence dung brings is conjecture and inflammatory commentary by people who are debunked regularly as well as FAIL to publish refuting studies in reputable journals with peer review!
IF they had the "evidence" they speak of, WHY are they whining publicly and why aren't they forcing a retraction or change in the paper?

THIS IS THE MEAT OF THE ANTI-AGW ARGUMENT!
the lack of credible evidence


Aug 24, 2015
I was not impressed.

Actually, there is math, and reference to math. Also a pretty serious indictment of the measuring system and the gaps.

Its enough to make people question it, and even more so when it doesn't agree with un-altered RSS data like it did before. I'm not a genius, but my nose works.

So, if the data had not been altered, this would not be "the hottest month".


Aug 24, 2015
I didn't see any attacks either...
@TehDog
small soapbox for a moment-sorry

Please take special notice that i took the time to not only read his link, but ALL the referenced links that were on that curry link he left!

what it boils down to is this:
he says that attacking people "didn't do much for me" and yet, when you view his links, it comes down to his people simply publicly attacking others and their papers... but lets look past that for one minute

look at their level of evidence versus the level of evidence provided for in the peer reviewed reputable publications which have gone through revisions and experimentation to qualify their work!

there is orders of magnitudes of difference- basically the wuwt, curry's, roy's and watts/tisdales are pushing obfuscation with personal conjecture about papers, methodology and data, but can't provide evidence for retraction?

given their blogs, there should be retractions out the *ss!
where are they?
LOL

Aug 24, 2015
Actually, there is math, and reference to math. Also a pretty serious indictment of the measuring system and the gaps
TRANSLATION: it looks smart and credible but i don't understand any of it
if their arguments had any credibility, they would have retracted or changed the study
Its enough to make people question it
TRANSLATION: it's enough to make people ignorant of the scientific method (or those with an agenda) accept it as fact because they don't like the implications of AGW and what it means
I'm not a genius, but my nose works
TRANSLATION: i am stupid and don't understand science, and i am devout in my acceptance of CONSPIRACY, so i will cling to these type posts even without any actual evidence because they validate my internal need to hate reality, the government and people who are smarter than me who comprehend the science, like Captain Stumpy, TehDog, Runrig, furlong and all the rest!

Aug 24, 2015
You're still muted Stumpy, relax.

Aug 24, 2015
You're still muted Stumpy, relax.
TRANSLATION:
i still open and read all your posts but i don't respond because i know i can't actually provide any evidence that is equivalent to reputable peer reviewed journal studies... i can only provide speculation, conjecture and known, debunked blatant fallacies (AKA- LIES) from my conspiracy sites because i am not capable of actually reading AND comprehending studies and the science within!
(this is, BTW, admitted by d here: http://phys.org/n...ght.html
read his conversations with furlong for more evidence supporting my assessment of his posts above)

i know you read these, because you haven't been responding to the ones that i post to others.... only to the ones i post to you
ROTFLMFAO

whoopsie, troll boy

want to know more about d? read this:
http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

Aug 24, 2015
hahahaha... too much.

Aug 24, 2015
case proven!
i say
i still open and read all your posts ...
i know you read these, because you haven't been responding to the ones that i post to others.... only to the ones i post to you
ROTFLMFAO
and then he replies!

WOW
you would think he could learn...

just...
wow!

tell you what, d!

why not present the evidence you have that debunks or disproves the bulk of all those validated scientific papers (which means they match observation!) so that you can actually talk science and not pseudoscience????

Aug 24, 2015
ok, this really is making me laugh. I wonder what you're saying! hahahaha oh, golden.

Aug 24, 2015
Hey Denglish - you're such an expert on this pre and post Karl data adjustment - and you are so anxious to expose this terrible conspiracy - so do us something really simple will you? Give us a link to the pre Karl data, and another one to the post Karl data. Let us all see in simple, clear format - how much this conspiracy of scientists manipulated the data sets.

Thanks.


OMG I already did it, and then Dog and I shared links over it! Just scroll up buddy; you'll be fine.

Aug 24, 2015
he others would all then be off calibration

Yeah. makes ya wonder donut?

they're different measuring systems, but before the change, they actually were much closer:
RSS:
http://woodfortre.../to:2015

HADCRUT4 Global Mean:
http://woodfortre.../to:2015

Actually they all agree

Wrong. I just gave you an example in this post of RSS and HADCRUT4 That is one of the reasons something smells so badly.

So please go dig up the pre-change data

Already done, and please, pay attention. We're going backwards here.

I have no ethics

Huh? I count every shot.


Aug 24, 2015
Already done, and please, pay attention. We're going backwards here.


No we are not - I am asking for something specific - or can't you so something as simple as copying 2 links to clarify what is going on?

Yes, it was. remember when you told the link was broken and I fixed it?

Anyway, I tried to access the site, but I can't from behind this particular firewall.

So, if you're really interested, you'll need to buck up and scroll up.

For post Karl HADCRUT4 data, you can go to woodfortrees for the graph.

Good luck. Something tells me you'll need it.

Aug 24, 2015
@greenonions

"No you did not. I am asking you to post a link to the pre Karl data, and another one to the post Karl data. Pretty graphs would be helpful. If you are such an expert - all I am asking you to do is copy 2 links - or can't you do it?"

He can't, but I can;
http://www.realcl...-hiatus/

Figure 2 from Karl et al (2015), showing the impact of the new data and corrections. A) New and old estimates, B) the impact of all corrections on the new estimate.

Aug 24, 2015
The funny thing about that is that it clearly shows that Karl et al increased the past temperatures, not cooled them as denglish claimed, above. This shows that denglish didn't even bother to look at the paper or the data before rejecting it. That shows the shallow nature of the anti-science movement. Anything that opposes their philosophy/politics must be rejected out of hand.

Aug 25, 2015
The funny thing about that is that it clearly shows that Karl et al increased the past temperatures, not cooled them as denglish claimed, above. This shows that denglish didn't even bother to look at the paper or the data before rejecting it. That shows the shallow nature of the anti-science movement. Anything that opposes their philosophy/politics must be rejected out of hand.


It's well-established that the statistical interventions of the data have led to a dataset that shows a *lower* increase in temperatures. So, by their logic, nearly every scientist in the world is engaged in a massive conspiracy to hide the *warming*.

Aug 25, 2015
@denglish
The heart of the problem is at the surface of the planet, I do not understand why denglish insist so much with the lower troposphere temperatures which is more about the climate at 2 to 3 kilometers above us.

Because after Karl et. al. I have not found a way to trust the land/sea measurements.
The famous paper that you are talking about (Karl et al.) is just a study that shows that there is no pause. Whether their methodology is good or not is disputable. But do not get overexcited about that it is just a paper amongst many of them. HadCRUT4 has not been changed nor will it be change because of this study. HadCRUT4 data are kept by the Climatic Research Unit in conjunction with the Hadley Center and that is in the UK. When they release a revised version they change the number.

Aug 25, 2015
is just a study that shows that there is no pause
@Techno
he doesn't know that because he didn't actually read it... he is getting fed the information from curry sites, or wuwt... etc
the whole reason he "distrusts" data sets, or the scientific community, is because he has decided that it is far more reasonable to accept the debunked arguments of the fanatical fringe who are continually proven to be fraudulent than accept the 10x thousands of scientists with objective reports and no ulterior motive who simply are trying to comprehend the climate with the scientific method

when conspiracy ideation takes hold, the circular argument to establish their brand of logic is all that is needed to maintain the farce and belief
http://www.ploson...tion=PDF
Conspiracist ideation, by contrast, is associated with the rejection of all scientific propositions tested

Aug 25, 2015
He can't, but I can;
http://www.realcl...-hiatus/
@TehDog
hey... great link! THANKS
reading that now!

Aug 25, 2015

It doesn't bother me, but it certainly is indicative of a certain intellectual mindset. One that amongst people that wear big-boy pants, isn't regarded as credible.

Jeepers Menelo, three posts of ignore-fail? You couldn't' do it in one?


What can i say, the world loves to see your idiocy get exposed ;) And so do we :D

Aug 25, 2015
you have picked a news article from the Daily Mail

No, I picked a news article that had pre-Karl HADCRUT readings. You did see the woodfortrees graph, yes? it must be credible, because you used it too.

And denglish - if you plug the numbers in yourself

You are using post-Karl numbers.

You're ignoring the difference that the Karl paper makes.

You are a fraud - and an idiot - for not caring enough about science as to post that kind of bullshit.

Insult is the last refuge of an exhausted intellect

Stumpy and Menelo, you're still muted; relax.


Totally relaxed and enjoying myself exposing you as a clown ;) Can't say the same for you as all you do with your life is post hilarious comments making a total idiot of yourself, there is more to life than doing that you know, socialising can be a good thing no need to be afraid.. ;)

Aug 25, 2015
you have picked a news article from the Daily Mail
No, I picked a news article that had pre-Karl HADCRUT readings. You did see the woodfortrees graph, yes? it must be credible, because you used it too.

And denglish - if you plug the numbers in yourself
You are using post-Karl numbers.

You're ignoring the difference that the Karl paper makes.

You are a fraud - and an idiot - for not caring enough about science as to post that kind of bullshit.
Insult is the last refuge of an exhausted intellect


Nope you have it somewhat skewed, insult is the last refuge of an exhausted intellect when you do it to yourself everyday here on physorg, those who add to the insult is only trying to help you understand that beating your head against a brick wall evryday won't get you through to the other side.. we are only trying to help, simply stop insulting yourself.

Aug 25, 2015
Wow, look at all those muted people. Stumpy, Menelo; relax.

Casting aspersions on the community of scientists for changing the data nefariously

I never said it was nefarious. Are you sure you're a trained communicator?

but I ask you for something very simple

I know, right? if you were genuine, you would have scrolled up and found them yourself, or even...kept up with the conversation. Your indignant remarks made ignorantly are revealing.

He can't, but I can;

And what is the trend from 1998-2015?

Karl et al increased the past temperatures

Not everywhere. Look again.

So, by their logic, nearly every scientist in the world is engaged in a massive conspiracy to hide the *warming*.

Wrong.


Aug 25, 2015
HadCRUT4 has not been changed nor will it be change because of this study. HadCRUT4 data are kept by the Climatic Research Unit in conjunction with the Hadley Center and that is in the UK. When they release a revised version they change the number.

Thank you for a reasonable post Techno.

If the numbers haven't been changed, how come the 1998-2015 trend lines are so different pre and post paper?

Well - like our friends at Fox news - 'We report - you decide'

Get indoctrinated much?

He can't, but I can;

This is actually pretty good. I'm going to go over it in detail. thanks for the link.

Aug 25, 2015
if you were genuine, you would have scrolled up and found them yourself
so... when someone pro-science asks, we are not being genuine?
but when you do exactly the same thing, it is OK because why?
And what is the trend from 1998-2015
and furlong demonstrates (in this thread: http://phys.org/n...ght.html ) that your insistence on shortening the data set gives you results that are
the absolute value of your uncertainty is LARGER than that of your value...Explicitly, your slope could be anywhere between -0.002312319 and 0.001793379. Your slope could actually be positive! So, 43.68% of your possible slopes are positive...We don't even need to compare it to any other data set to see how poor it is
AUG 24 posts
this is called stupidity for continuing to push the same debunked LIE over and over, regardless of being proven WRONG

Aug 25, 2015
If the numbers haven't been changed, how come the 1998-2015 trend lines are so different pre and post paper
why dont you actually read the papers, and make sure you read the justification/references in said paper, starting with Peterson et al (above) which is one paper Karl was also involved in, and likely where he got his idea to examine the data set more closely... oh wait!
your indoctrination to Conspiracy ideation will not allow you to read ACTUAL VALIDATED FACTS... sorry
http://phys.org/n...ies.html

http://phys.org/n...lls.html

http://phys.org/n...nce.html

http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

http://jspp.psych...443/html

http://web.missou...ange.pdf

dung= PSEUDOSCIENCE troll

Aug 25, 2015
They aren't - so once again you are wrong.

Prove it.

then you would link us to graphs showing the pre and post Karl trend line

If you were truly interested in dialogue, then you would scroll up and make yourself current to the conversation (where the links are). *Especially* after I told you I can't help you from this location.

so that we could see that you are not wrong. Of course you can't/won't do that.

I think you're completely lost and are falling back on a shield of indignation.

TehDog did it for you - and showed clearly how you are talking out your ass

Wrong. Please, make yourself current to the discussion. TehDog did produce data, but not in context to what I am arguing. that has been pointed out to him, and I am waiting for his response.

that shows you are talking out your ass

Wrong. it shows I am willing to learn.

What a joke you become.

Thank you for such a thoughtful post.


Aug 25, 2015
If you were truly interested in dialogue, then you would scroll up and make yourself current to the conversation (where the links are)
the worst part about this particular argument is that he is the worst offender of using the EXACT same argument!
he has repeatedly used this tactic to claim that this-or-that study is debunked, or that his information must be true because this-and-that, but when told that reading the above link debunks him with evidence, he tangentially argues that, since we can't re-link it again for the 1,000th time, it can't be true... WTF?
it also shows he is
completely lost and are falling back on a shield of indignation
as well as intellectually dishonest, intentionally flaming, baiting and pushing fraudulent data and more
see also: http://phys.org/n...ght.html

furlong proved him WRONG about his data set above, so what does he do?
RE-POSTED IT HERE!

now THAT is intellectual dishonesty & fraud

Aug 25, 2015
it shows I am willing to learn
if d is willing to learn, then WHY is he INTENTIONALLY refusing to read the bulk of the scientific publications out there on Climate Science?

Why is he refusing to accept the same evidence as produced to him?

Why can he not produce equivalent studies to refute the studies linked to him which demonstrate AGW?

why can't he accept empirical evidence that is validated over the intentionally, and PROVEN fraudulent claims of his conspiracy theorists clan members?

maybe someone can ask these questions of him?.... because, i HAVE read the links he has offered as evidence- and for the most part, every one has been debunked with validated science... so the question remains:
WHY is he still clinging to his anti-science stance when the overwhelming amount of evidence refutes his claims?
(as noted in this blog: http://blogs.scie...sagrees/ )

Aug 25, 2015
You're still muted Stumpy. Relax. Onions doesn't need to get riled up any more than he already is.

Aug 25, 2015
@denglish
"TehDog did produce data, but not in context to what I am arguing. that has been pointed out to him, and I am waiting for his response."

I have no idea what you are arguing. Please, let me know so I can be more precise in any response.
As to "that has been pointed out to him...", again, please point out where that happened, I can't seem to find it.


Aug 25, 2015
please point out where that happened, I can't seem to find it.
@TehDog
good luck getting a rational answer, or even one that is not blatantly a lie intended to mislead others.

read this link and his discourse with furlong: http://phys.org/n...ght.html

you can cut-&-paste furlongs argument to him and prove him a double intentional lying idiot, but it won't stop him from continuing to lie

You're still muted Stumpy. Relax
@d
how do you know i am talking to you and not offering Onions data to help him refute your blatant attempts to provide fraudulent data that is debunked ????

Aug 25, 2015
I have no idea what you are arguing. Please, let me know so I can be more precise in any response.

Dog, check out the DailyMail article above, and the woodfortrees 1998-2014 trendline in the graph from the article. That is the pre-Karl tendline (AKA the Hiatus).

Then, compare it against the current woodfortrees HADCRUT4 1998-2014. The difference is pretty remarkable.

The relevant graphs are the ones showing with and without corrections.

For some reason, you cannot grasp the time frame in question. I'm really sorry about that. For the last time: 1998-2014 is the time frame.

Interesting - how you are a total joke - but just want to keep hitting yourself in the head with a hammer.

Thank you for the thoughtful post.

Having a conversation with someone who you are not having a conversation with - that's a winner.

I think its hilarious in its absurdity. Emotion in motion.

Aug 25, 2015
Finally - got denglish to comit himself/herself.

hahaha of course you did. huh?

except that the Daily Mail article has very dishonestly put a fudged trend line in

Perhaps. In order to prove that, you'd have to list every number in the graph so that we could independently verify (if you get the numbers, I'll graph it). Otherwise, you don't know, you are only asserting a speculation.

Eyeballing it, the trendline looks pretty genuine (more low peaks than high peaks), so you'll have to quantify your claim. That said, it is odd that DM didn't use the trendline in the woodfortrees app. That is an unfortunate oversight.

I hate the edit function - it cuts stuff out when you do and edit.

It should do something to help you with paying attention to detail. I fixed your graph:
http://www.woodfo.../to:2014


Aug 25, 2015
That's because they take the graph and then put a linear trend line between two cherry-picked points, usually changing the axis to make any peaks and troughs look flatter.

Never mind that climate is a) not linear and b) a trend rather than a fixed point.That's how we know temps have increased approximately 1 degree but they can still produce graphs that "show" temp increases have flattened.

But I think we've all made these points now about 18 times so maybe it's time to let him rant him peace?

Aug 25, 2015
@denglish
"Dog, check out the DailyMail article above"
If you're referring to McKitrick's paper, please do so directly. The Daily Mail is not a credible

source. The paper can found here;

http://dx.doi.org...14.47050

I posted this link earlier;
http://www.climat...methods/

The comment by Greg Laden (about 50% down) sums up the major problems with the paper, and given McKitrick didn't respond, I have to assume he didn't disagree with Laden's analysis.
[cont]

Aug 25, 2015
"Then, compare it against the current woodfortrees HADCRUT4 1998-2014. The difference is pretty remarkable."

Links to the specific graphics you are referring to would be good, they probably end in .PNG or .jpg

Right click*, select "copy image location"*, and paste that into any reply.

As far as the "time frame" is concerned, 15-16 years is not enough to determine a trend, and cherry-picking the start and end points is a no-no.
* Depending on OS

Aug 25, 2015
@greenonions
"Links to the specific graphics you are referring to would be good,"
Thanks GO, looking at them side by side is enough :)
and leet, yep.
If those are indeed the two graphs he's referring to I'm still not sure what his problem is.

Aug 26, 2015
Wow, look at all those muted people. Stumpy, Menelo; relax.


Aah donglish with the same one liner again.
Is Your fingers twitching, eyebrows too ? as always we always win in the comments section ;) and we are all not muted, unable to keep your cool, you frantically check all our replies because you know the world see all of your dumb replies, and fortunatelly you and your clown socks can't mute what the world sees, aka you making an idiot of yourself with each post, time to kick back in my easy chair and enjoy the comedey ;)

Aug 26, 2015
denglish
In order to prove that, you'd have to list every number in the graph


Those of us that can read graphs - don't need to do that. The simple point is that you told TehDog that "the difference is pretty remarkable." Now remember - you are asserting that the pre-Karl data is remarkably different than the post Karl data. But the data graphs are clear - they are identical. Once again you are not only wrong - but stupidly wrong. Just for grins and giggles - I will take the time to plot each data point - and demonstrate that not only are you stupidly wrong - but you need help reading a very simple graph. cont.


Lol as per above, what a nutcracker this clown is :D

Aug 26, 2015
Finally - got denglish to comit himself/herself.

hahaha of course you did. huh?

except that the Daily Mail article has very dishonestly put a fudged trend line in

Perhaps. In order to prove that, you'd have to list every number in the graph so that we could independently verify (if you get the numbers, I'll graph it). Otherwise, you don't know, you are only asserting a speculation.

Eyeballing it, the trendline looks pretty genuine (more low peaks than high peaks), so you'll have to quantify your claim. That said, it is odd that DM didn't use the trendline in the woodfortrees app. That is an unfortunate oversight.

I hate the edit function - it cuts stuff out when you do and edit.

It should do something to help you with paying attention to detail. I fixed your graph:


I can see he is trying to eat that carrot through the tennis racquet... keep trying, you'll get your bannanas only when you succeed ;)

Aug 26, 2015
cont. I did one better denglish - I overlaid the 2 graphs - and they are identical (except for the Daily Mail's fudged trend line). Nuf said.

You overlaid them? hahaha OK.

But the data graphs are clear - they are identical.

Wrong.

Just for grins and giggles - I will take the time to plot each data point - and demonstrate that not only are you stupidly wrong - but you need help reading a very simple graph.

Thank you for the thoughtful post.

cont.

Emotion in motion

If you're referring to McKitrick's paper, please do so directly. The Daily Mail is not a credible
source. The paper can found here;

Nice pull Dog! I'll read that. I know the DM is not something we should hang our hat on. I just found the graph in a short period of time that I had.


Aug 26, 2015
As far as the "time frame" is concerned, 15-16 years is not enough to determine a trend, and cherry-picking the start and end points is a no-no.

I agree. In another thread we figured 30 years is better.

I disagree that anything was cherry picked. The main reason is because at least as far as the data end time is in the present day. The start time is calculated, and shows a cooling trend from 1997 until today.

We'll see in 12 years whether or not the trendline is accurate.

I believe its significant, because it is falsifying the theories of temperature increase from AGW, thus reinforcing my belief that, coupled with having yet to measure anything outside of the bounds of the earths natural variations, we do not yet know enough about climate change to cripple our economies.


Aug 26, 2015
I agree. In another thread we figured 30 years is better
not just BETTER, but better for a REASON... that reason is that cherry picking shorter time spans adds unreliability as well as falsely represents information because it may show results that are widely irregular without actually having those actually exist... which is WHY it is called cherry picking
I disagree that anything was cherry picked
the TRUE DELUSIONAL trying to justify his LIE...
IF it is selected to intentionally represent a known fallacy AND
IF it is selected because you know that longer trends remove the image and show different results
THEN IT IS CHERRY PICKED and selected specifically for the reason of demonstrating your personal agenda, which has been proven fallacious repeatedly!
We'll see in 12 years whether or not the trendline is accurate
but will you admit failure?NO
you still can't admit that you are wrong about your CHERRY PICKED graph, even when PROVEN wrong!

Aug 26, 2015
I believe its significant, because
it is NOT about belief, it is about evidence, and making the claim that it falsifies anything while at the same time admitting that it should be 30 years, while also noting that in another conversation (with furlong here: http://phys.org/n...ght.html ) it was proven to be NOT ONLY WRONG, but WHY it was wrong only demonstrates that you are willing to accept ANY evidence that is anti-AGW simply because you are attempting to justify your own personal belief system which you KNOW to be WRONG!
we do not yet know enough about climate change to
but we DO know enough to make decisions about the KNOWN elements that are causing havoc and we CAN take steps to control those things we DO know...

the problem you have is that you want everyone to believe YOUR story with either NO evidence or with DEBUNKED evidence, while ignoring evidence yourself

this is why you are labeled a DENIER


Aug 26, 2015
Still muted!

Aug 26, 2015
Still muted!

Nope the world is not muted to every single comment on this site ;) (ie they see you are dumb ;)

And nope you are still and always watching every single post eagerly as your insecurities show so bad, you have no way of hiding it. (but hey, that's the consequence of posting dumb replies with false and conspiricy evidence) :D

Aug 26, 2015

the problem you have is that you want everyone to believe YOUR story with either NO evidence or with DEBUNKED evidence, while ignoring evidence yourself

this is why you are labeled a DENIER


Well put Captain, and a dumb denier at that lol... 5 cheers for you, can't give any cheers for our monkey donglish... ;) He keeps stirring up freshly brewed stupidity :D

Aug 26, 2015
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html


gorilla stumbled upon some more potty propaganda as usual, you go monkey ! :D

Aug 26, 2015
Denglish you have agreed that 30 years is needed to show a trend but you don't go back 30 years in the data sets?

Instead, you go back to 1997 as if there were no data from earlier years. Why don't you go back to 1985 to start your trend lines if you agree that 30 years are needed?

Aug 26, 2015
Why don't we go back to when man made GloBULL warming started. But then, the AGW Cult's settled "science" can't tell us that date.

Aug 27, 2015
Naa, the only bull posted was by your above links and your puppet donglish, learn to swing from the trees more gracefully, from there you can progress to walk upright like a mamn ;)

Why don't we go back to when man made GloBULL warming started. But then, the AGW Cult's settled "science" can't tell us that date.


Naa, the only bull posted was by your above links and your puppet donglish, learn to swing from the trees more gracefully first, from there you can progress to walk upright like a man ;)

Aug 27, 2015
But you go ahead and reference a fraudulent economist

Nonsense.

who goes right ahead and misrepresents a 19 year record

Prove it.

But the fundamental point is that denglish has made an outrageous claim - that the pre and post Karl data are remarkably different -

In representing the hiatus, they absolutely are.

Denglish you have agreed that 30 years is needed to show a trend but you don't go back 30 years in the data sets?

That's right. My position has changed a bit. I'll say that RSS and pre-Karl readings show we are in a cooling period (falsifying predictions), but the length of time is not yet statistically significant as a solid trend.

Why don't you go back to 1985 to start your trend lines if you agree that 30 years are needed?

No problem. Then, let's go back to when the earth was even hotter. Cooling trend anyone?


Aug 27, 2015
That's right. My position has changed a bit. I'll say that RSS and pre-Karl readings show we are in a cooling period (falsifying predictions), but the length of time is not yet statistically significant as a solid trend.


If the trend you claim to see is not statistically significant how can it falsify predictions?

Aug 27, 2015
@denglish
Denglish you have agreed that 30 years is needed to show a trend but you don't go back 30 years in the data sets?

That's right. My position has changed a bit. I'll say that RSS and pre-Karl readings show we are in a cooling period (falsifying predictions), but the length of time is not yet statistically significant as a solid trend.
Every comparison made with old graph shows that there has not been any recent modification of the HadCRUT4 curve. You can look at the 35 years (Jan 1979 to Nov 2014) HadCrut4 graph found on this article written by one of your politically 'friendly' blogger; it is the same as the curve that anybody can trace with WoodForTrees (I did compare them). https://bobtisdal...-update/

tbc