2015 Was NOT The Warmest Year In History… Here’s The Data To Prove It

[longknife]

Could it be that somebody has been fudging the figures for political purposes? Here's a few things to look at.

First, satellite data shows no warning. There are two trends, one coming from surface temperature recorded by NASA, and another, which is a more accurate satellite reading.

Second, Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert, a German professor and data computation expert, charged last year that NASA fiddled with with temperature records to create a global warming scenario.

In addition, the NOAA also over-exaggerated the extent of global warming so as to make the situation appear more dire than it actually is. In fact, they over-estimated the data by at least 50 percent.

According to satellite temperature data, 2015 was only the third warmest year since 1979, as temperatures recorded in 1998 and 2010. Moreover, 2015 was about .2 degrees cooler than the recorded satellite data from 1998.

Finally, renowned scientists from around the world are discrediting claims made by NASA and the NOAA, saying that the exaggerated global warming warnings are false.

I carefully included links to each claim. However, we all know that the AGW crowd will either ignore them or ignore them because of their source. The TRUTH is something they can't or won't deal with. The story is @ No, 2015 Was NOT The Warmest Year In History... Here's The Data To Prove It

 

[Jackson]

So much for Global Warming!

 

[ScienceRocks]

The satellite data showing very little warming during the strongest nino in history blows their creditably out of the water.

UAH is a fraud.

 

[JustAnotherNut]

My question is this.....who or what are they blaming it on? Is it man-made? Or a natural phenomenon?

The earth has been in existence for millions of years, it goes thru natural cycles of change. Man's impact on it in the last 150-200 years may have some degree of effect, about the same as a pebble on the shore. Not much

 

[Old Rocks]

Well now, Nut, why don't you research it?

 

[mamooth]

Could it be that somebody has been fudging the figures for political purposes?

Well yes, it has been confirmed that the right-wing political cult has been consistently engaging in massive fraud on this issue. That's just one reason why everyone ignores them now. The other reason is that they suck so badly at the science.

First, satellite data shows no warning.

That's totally wrong. The satellite data shows almost as much warming as the surface data. If you'd like, I can show you the testimony of Dr. Mears on that point, him being the guy who made the RSS satellite data.

There are two trends, one coming from surface temperature recorded by NASA, and another, which is a more accurate satellite reading.

That's also totally wrong. Almost everyone in the science, everyone except the paid political hacks, agree that the surface data is very reliable, and the satellite data is not. For example, the weather balloon data also disagrees with the satellite data, and agrees with the surface data. Satellite data is the odd man out among all the types of temperature data, and has known problems in how it's generated. Honest people don't throw away all the data except for the one little outlier that they like, but deniers depend on that tactic.

Second, Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert, a German professor and data computation expert, charged last year that NASA fiddled with with temperature records to create a global warming scenario.

But since he can't back up his crazy stories, nobody cares what he charged. Conspiracy cranks are a dime a dozen. That guy is a diehard libertarian lifelong denier crank, a former geologist, with no experience in climate science, and who is no more of a "data computation expert" than I am.

In addition, the NOAA also over-exaggerated the extent of global warming so as to make the situation appear more dire than it actually is. In fact, they over-estimated the data by at least 50 percent.

No, that's just some weird fiction.

According to satellite temperature data, 2015 was only the third warmest year since 1979, as temperatures recorded in 1998 and 2010. Moreover, 2015 was about .2 degrees cooler than the recorded satellite data from 1998.

Cherrypicking fallacy. One point is not a trend, and no real scientist would claim it is. If someone tries to claim that, they're either completely ignorant of statistics, or being deliberately dishonest.

Finally, renowned scientists from around the world are discrediting claims made by NASA and the NOAA, saying that the exaggerated global warming warnings are false.

Oh look, the list of "renowned scientists" who mostly aren't scientists at all. The ones who are scientists are in different field and know nothing of the topic. someone would have to be pretty desperate to invoke that nonsense.

I carefully included links to each claim.

Links that lead to bullshit that doesn't back up your claims. Did you really think we haven't seen such deceptions attempted many times?

But hey, maybe you're on to something. Maybe there is a vast global socialist plot, and you're one of the few elite freedom fighters who understands the RealTruth. I bet it sure tickles your ego to believe that, right?

Naaaah. Sorry to break it to you, but you've just been snookered by a pack of con artists, people who lured you in by playing on your desire to feel wonderful and special. That's how cults work.

However, we all know that the AGW crowd will either ignore them or ignore them because of their source. The TRUTH is something they can't or won't deal with. The story is @ No, 2015 Was NOT The Warmest Year In History... Here's The Data To Prove It

This would be where you now declare victory and retreat, like you always do. Please proceed. After all, being how you're so ignorant of this topic, it's not like you can stick around and back up your cut-and-paste conspiracy theories.

And by the way, Gish Galloping is a dead giveaway that the speaker has nothing. That is, posts like this that throw everything at the wall in the hopes something sticks, and in the hopes that the sheer volume of the crap presented will prevent responses. People with facts behind them can succinctly present their case, and don't need to Gish Gallop.

 

[JustAnotherNut]

Well now, Nut, why don't you research it?

Don't really see the need for further research on my part. Archeologists, scientists, and researchers have already proven the earths landscape has changed many times over the course of time, completely different than we know it today.

 

[mamooth]

Don't really see the need for further research on my part. Archeologists, scientists, and researchers have already proven the earths landscape has changed many times over the course of time, completely different than we know it today.

And what does that have to do with anything?

Are you claiming that since climate has changed naturally, it's impossible for humans to change climate, and therefore humans shouldn't even try to avoid doing so?

I hope not, as that would be totally senseless. It would be exactly as senseless as saying that since forest fires used to always occur naturally, it's impossible for humans to cause forest fires, and therefore there's no point in practicing fire safety.

 

[JustAnotherNut]

And what does that have to do with anything?

Are you claiming that since climate has changed naturally, it's impossible for humans to change climate, and therefore humans shouldn't even try to avoid doing so?

I hope not, as that would be totally senseless. It would be exactly as senseless as saying that since forest fires used to always occur naturally, it's impossible for humans to cause forest fires, and therefore there's no point in practicing fire safety.

To answer your questions, no of course not, but I am saying man's impact is far less than nature itself.

My question is this.....who or what are they blaming it on? Is it man-made? Or a natural phenomenon?

The earth has been in existence for millions of years, it goes thru natural cycles of change. Man's impact on it in the last 150-200 years may have some degree of effect, about the same as a pebble on the shore. Not much

 

[IanC]

It's funny how Matthew loves satellite data when it agrees with his opinion but it's a fraud when it doesn't.

Zwally sat on satellite data for seven years, hoping that something would come along and explain away the ice sheet growth in Antarctica. I guess Zwally and those satellites are frauds now too.

 

[Crick]

It's funny how Matthew loves satellite data when it agrees with his opinion but it's a fraud when it doesn't.

Zwally sat on satellite data for seven years, hoping that something would come along and explain away the ice sheet growth in Antarctica. I guess Zwally and those satellites are frauds now too.

Ice mass and temperature aren't measured by the same technology, are they Ian. That seems a bit desperate of you.

 

[jc456]

Don't really see the need for further research on my part. Archeologists, scientists, and researchers have already proven the earths landscape has changed many times over the course of time, completely different than we know it today.

And what does that have to do with anything?

Are you claiming that since climate has changed naturally, it's impossible for humans to change climate, and therefore humans shouldn't even try to avoid doing so?

I hope not, as that would be totally senseless. It would be exactly as senseless as saying that since forest fires used to always occur naturally, it's impossible for humans to cause forest fires, and therefore there's no point in practicing fire safety.

Are you claiming that since climate has changed naturally, it's impossible for humans to change climate, and therefore humans shouldn't even try to avoid doing so?

And yet you can't prove any of it can you. It's why you're still here. hahahahahahahaha dude/dudette, you won't even answer a simple question, which is is 58>62? For the life of me I can't figure out why none of you warmers can answer that simple question. Other than you are a bunch of scare-di-cats. LOL

BTW, the climate changed it got cooler and why 58<62. Thanks NOAA.

 

[JustAnotherNut]

See for yourself on Wikipedia. The Vostok Station is the coldest place on the planet and provides data research of temperature, CO2 & other levels in the graph in the 'Ice Core Drilling' section dating back 420,000 years. If you notice there is plenty of ups & downs on that graph that go on long before man made pollution & destruction of resources were ever thought of. In fact, the highest numbers were some 325,000 years ago.

Vostok Station - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ice core drilling[edit]

420,000 years of ice core data from Vostok, Antarctica, research station. Current period is at left. From bottom to top: insolation at 65°N due to Milankovitch cycles (connected to 18O); 18O isotope of oxygen; levels of methane (CH4); relative temperature; levels of carbon dioxide (CO2).
In the 1970s the Soviet Union drilled a set of cores 500–952 m deep. These have been used to study the oxygen isotope composition of the ice, which showed that ice of the last glacial period was present below about 400 m depth. Then three more holes were drilled: in 1984, Hole 3G reached a final depth of 2202 m; in 1990, Hole 4G reached a final depth of 2546 m; and in 1993 Hole 5G reached a depth of 2755 m; after a brief closure, drilling continued during the winter of 1995. In 1996 it was stopped at depth 3623 m, by the request of the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research that expressed worries about possible contamination of Lake Vostok. This ice core, drilled collaboratively with the French, produced a record of past environmental conditions stretching back 420,000 years and covering four previous glacial periods. For a long time it was the only core to cover several glacial cycles; but in 2004 it was exceeded by the EPICA core, which whilst shallower, covers a longer time span. In 2003 drilling was permitted to continue, but was halted at the estimated distance to the lake of only 130 m.

The ancient lake was finally breached on 5 February 2012 when scientists stopped drilling at the depth of 3770 meters and reached the surface of the sub-glacial lake.

The brittle zone is approximately between 250 and 750 m and corresponds to the Last Glacial Maximum,[20] with the end of the Holocene climatic optimum at or near the 250 m depth.

Although the Vostok core reached a depth of 3623 m the usable climatic information does not extend down this far. The very bottom of the core is ice refrozen from the waters of Lake Vostok and contains no climate information. The usual data sources give proxy information down to a depth of 3310 m or 414,000 years.[21] Below this there is evidence of ice deformation. It has been suggested that the Vostok record may be extended down to 3345 m or 436,000 years, to include more of the interesting MIS11 period, by inverting a section of the record.[22] This then produces a record in agreement with the newer, longer EPICA record, although it provides no new information.

 

[mamooth]

And that's a big logic failure post. The fact that climate has changed naturally in the past in no way means that humans can't change climate.

 

[mamooth]

And yet you can't prove any of it can you. It's why you're still here. hahahahahahahaha dude/dudette, you won't even answer a simple question, which is is 58>62? For the life of me I can't figure out why none of you warmers can answer that simple question. Other than you are a bunch of scare-di-cats. LOL

62 is greater than 58. And that has nothing to do with anything, since those numbers come from different baselines.

However, 62.3 > 62, which are the numbers you get when you use matching baselines.

jc, is 62.3 > 62?

Are you going to answer, or are you too scared?

Why do you and Frank think that your brazen baseline fraud is going to convince anyone of anything, other than the fact you're both open frauds?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Don't really see the need for further research on my part. Archeologists, scientists, and researchers have already proven the earths landscape has changed many times over the course of time, completely different than we know it today.

And what does that have to do with anything?

Are you claiming that since climate has changed naturally, it's impossible for humans to change climate, and therefore humans shouldn't even try to avoid doing so?

I hope not, as that would be totally senseless. It would be exactly as senseless as saying that since forest fires used to always occur naturally, it's impossible for humans to cause forest fires, and therefore there's no point in practicing fire safety.

I've got a great idea! Show us any lab working linking a 10 to 100ppm changes in CO2 to tempoerature

 

[jc456]

And yet you can't prove any of it can you. It's why you're still here. hahahahahahahaha dude/dudette, you won't even answer a simple question, which is is 58>62? For the life of me I can't figure out why none of you warmers can answer that simple question. Other than you are a bunch of scare-di-cats. LOL

62 is greater than 58. And that has nothing to do with anything, since those numbers come from different baselines.

However, 62.3 > 62, which are the numbers you get when you use matching baselines.

jc, is 62.3 > 62?

Are you going to answer, or are you too scared?

Why do you and Frank think that your brazen baseline fraud is going to convince anyone of anything, other than the fact you're both open frauds?

Tooth, 62.3 is greater than 62 I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. 58 was the number that was produced after doing the math on that 2015 data and you can't change the baseline because that invalidates all that Data. The number one rule in statistics is you got to have the same baseline, I do understand what you think you're manipulating but that is manipulating and you can look that definition up.
Yo, tooth, why did the baseline change can you answer that?

 

[JustAnotherNut]

And what does that have to do with anything?

Are you claiming that since climate has changed naturally, it's impossible for humans to change climate, and therefore humans shouldn't even try to avoid doing so?

I hope not, as that would be totally senseless. It would be exactly as senseless as saying that since forest fires used to always occur naturally, it's impossible for humans to cause forest fires, and therefore there's no point in practicing fire safety.

And that's a big logic failure post. The fact that climate has changed naturally in the past in no way means that humans can't change climate.

Since you repeat yourself, it's apparent I need to also.....

To answer your questions, no of course not, but I am saying man's impact is far less than nature itself.

Man's impact on it in the last 150-200 years may have some degree of effect,....

Yes, man does have SOME effect on climate changes. I don't think anyone can dispute the fact of man-made pollution, constant draining of the earths resources by fracking, drilling, destruction of rain forests & old growth timber & whatever other abuses man has done to the planet, hasn't made an impact. On this I think we do agree. I am pointing out the broader spectrum of natural changes and cycles that scientists and researchers have shown the majority of these effects would happen anyway. Man may have just stepped on the gas pedal by a degree or two, I don't know. But I really don't think, given scientific data proving the earth's constant natural changes over a wide range of it's history, that man has made as much of an effect than the earth itself.

Unless of course you are of the thinking of conspiracy theories of some top secret base in Alaska wilderness behind armed guards, that guys in white coats are flipping switches intended for extreme weather changes throughout the world........then that is entirely another story.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The satellite data showing very little warming during the strongest nino in history blows their creditably out of the water.

UAH is a fraud.

This EL NADA is a farce and made up from fiddled data. The atmospheric flow patterns and water vapor levels tell the tale. They do not show a strong El Niño or even a moderate El Niño.. The patterns are that of a neutral cycle and a forming El Niña.

Failing to look at the empirical evidence and believing your government masters is your first mistake. UAH and RSS both show a neutral cycle not a blow out hot one..

Do we believe the made up NASA and NOAA crap or the empirical evidence which correlates to what we have seen in historical patterns?

 

[Billy_Bob]

And yet you can't prove any of it can you. It's why you're still here. hahahahahahahaha dude/dudette, you won't even answer a simple question, which is is 58>62? For the life of me I can't figure out why none of you warmers can answer that simple question. Other than you are a bunch of scare-di-cats. LOL

62 is greater than 58. And that has nothing to do with anything, since those numbers come from different baselines.

However, 62.3 > 62, which are the numbers you get when you use matching baselines.

jc, is 62.3 > 62?

Are you going to answer, or are you too scared?

Why do you and Frank think that your brazen baseline fraud is going to convince anyone of anything, other than the fact you're both open frauds?

AH.. NO!

The base lines did not change. Only after the data was published and the discrepancy exposed did they then change the baseline in an attempt to defend their lies..

Its funny how these "baselines" magically change to support their lies, isn't it! The 52 Deg C baseline has been normalized for over 9 years, and now they just happen to bump it up... How convenient..

Got to love it..