2010 is the 23rd warmest year since 1895 in USA

[Old Rocks]

[ QUOTE=edthecynic;3214976]

Don't you deniers ever get tired of lying?????
The ONLY thing from Connolley is the chart, which you can't rebut nor any of the other information I posted, so you get some non-scientific right wing whacko hack site to attack the man personally and you ignore everything else!

So here is a link to a paper co-authored by John Christy where he admits that when his and Spencer's errors are corrected, there is no discrepancy between Troposphere temps and surface temps:

Are you now going to attack Christy for admitting the truth you can't accept or rebut????

http://www.climatescience.gov/Librar...al-execsum.pdf

Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming
near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to
challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human induced global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial
global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde
data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant
discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and
radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets
have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies. __________________

unfucking real! that is your proof??????? did you even read it? its a feel good kumbaya article about how climate models aren't as out of whack as they used to be. not totally inconsistent with data at all times and at all altitudes. thats five minutes out of my life that I can never get back.

that had zero to do with what you claimed

As was pointed out and highlighted so no one, not even you could miss, that confirmation of the accuracy of the ground station data and the models after the errors in the UAH data were corrected came from denier Christy himself.

It clearly says Spencer and Christy's UAH data was what was out of whack and the models, the RSS and ground station data was accurate all along, never out of whack, but as a denier you got it completely backwards. No surprise there.

Just to repeat it so you get it this time, it was the UAH satellite data that deniers were using that was out of whack and now is not "as out of whack as it used to be" since Christy and Spencer's errors were corrected.
GET IT?????????????????

please give the chapter and line where it says anthing re
motely close to what you claim.[/QUOTE]

Ian, have you been drinking whatever it is that mdn drinks?

 

[IanC]

Ave Hansen! Now all bow to the gods of statistical shenanigans...mmmmmmmmm

Hmmmm........ It just so happens that Dr. Hansen is not only considered the leading climate scientist in the US, but most consider him to be the leading climate scientist in the world. Now you are accusing him of major fraud. Fraud equal to that of the the doctor that falsified the vacination data.

You claim that you are a scientist with membership both in the Royal Society and the American Geophysical Union. So, if you know for sure that the data is false, then it is your duty to show that to be the case. Failing to do that makes you an accessory to that fraud. However, if you are just shooting bull, then it is you that is the fraud.

Old Rocks- are you saying that all the changes to the data weren't made? past temperatures have been lowered and recent temps have been adjusted up. I am sure that you totally agree with any of Hansen's manipulations but I challenge you to make up a good excuse for dropping the value for US1998 while media attention was on after the Y2K fiasco, and then reinstating it once the media forgot about the story.

I suppose my last question was just too hard to answer, although reading the list of emails acquired from a FoI request pertaining to that time would suggest an ugly reason but certainly not a 'good excuse'.

perhaps you could explain this graph to me. I have always wondered how they could go back into time, correct the data, and always have the results bolster the case for warming.

edit- eyeballing the graph seems to show at least a .2C cooling early in the last century and a .3C warming late in the last century for a change in the trend of what.....at least .7C per century, probably closer to .9C?