Giss shows that we had the second warmest Oct

Discussion in 'Environment' started by Matthew, Nov 17, 2012.

  1. Matthew
    Online

    Matthew Blue dog all the way!

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2010
    Messages:
    28,701
    Thanks Received:
    1,981
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Portland Oregon
    Ratings:
    +2,636
  2. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    35,494
    Thanks Received:
    4,642
    Trophy Points:
    262
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +5,165
  3. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,382
    Thanks Received:
    558
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Ratings:
    +650
    from your link-
    with all the bogus adjustments, station drop-outs, etc, do you really think that there is a legitimate comparison between years?
     
  4. SSDD
    Offline

    SSDD VIP Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2012
    Messages:
    5,071
    Thanks Received:
    341
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +567
    Highly doubtable. I don't believe there is a record out there that is reliable. Recently spencer was talking about making adjustments to his data base beause the satellite is slowly drifting away from accurate measurements. It seems that even UAH is little more than fancy guesswork any more.
     
  5. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    34,757
    Thanks Received:
    3,755
    Trophy Points:
    247
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +4,089
    And, of course, the pictures of the Artic Ica Cap are all photoshoped.

    But, rejoice, you people have won. There will be no reduction in GHGs produced worldwide. In fact, as the world economy improves, we will increase the amount of GHGs put into the atmosphere, and ignore the consequences that we are seeing increase every year now.

    The scientists vastly underestimated the sensitvity of the climate. The Arctic Ice was not supposed to be where it was at this summer until about 2080. And we were not supposed to be seeing the kind of extreme weather events that we are presenty seeing until past 2050.

    But, it doesn't matter. It will be ignored until something really catastrophic happens in this nation.
     
  6. whitehall
    Offline

    whitehall Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    19,465
    Thanks Received:
    2,402
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    Western Va.
    Ratings:
    +2,843
    Who is "GISS" and why does the radical left accept the acronym's alleged data? It sounds good?
     
  7. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,382
    Thanks Received:
    558
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Ratings:
    +650
    Goddard Institute of Space Studies. a division of NASA that studies climate change and keeps temperature data sets.

    thermometer readings have been keep for 150 years. the thermometers have changed, the time and number of readings per day have changed, the station locations have changed, the environment around the stations have changed, the number of included stations have changed (affecting the altitude and latitude averages), the designation of rural and urban has changed. but especially, the methodologies behind how to correct for these changes has steadily evolved over the last few decades and has lead to adjustments that are a very large fraction of the trend that they have found. all new versions have increased the trend except for the hurried correction in 2007 when the Canadian skeptic Stephen McIntyre found a Y2K bug.

    most people and govts accept these values because there are no other independent data sets. the satellite data since 1979 show a cooler but still increasing trend. Berkeley's BEST program developed a data set using as much of the station data as possible which initially showed even higher trends but the papers have been stranded in peer review for more than a year now. not a good sign for their results.
     
  8. Politico
    Offline

    Politico Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2011
    Messages:
    11,621
    Thanks Received:
    749
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +933
    Cool. I get an extra month of growing season.
     
  9. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,382
    Thanks Received:
    558
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Ratings:
    +650
    I can only hope that you are right Old Rocks, and that the skeptics will prevail in showing how exaggerated and distorted the science has been concerning global warming. it would be a welcome change to see data driving the conclusions rather than the current situation where predetermined conclusions are backed up with cherrypicked data and knowingly incorrect and incomplete methodologies.
     
  10. SSDD
    Offline

    SSDD VIP Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2012
    Messages:
    5,071
    Thanks Received:
    341
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +567
    Sat images of surface melting do register as open water which calls much of the sat data on the ice cap into question.

    Recently published papers are calling ice loss data into question.

    http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/ice-sheet-loss-cut-half

    Science and observation are winning. CO2 continues to rise but 16 years have passed now with no warming at all, and the so called fingerprints of man made warming are simply not there. In short, man's influence on the global climate if it exists is not separable from natural variation. Will it take another ice age with atmospheric levels above 400 to convince you that you, and a great many others bet on the wrong horse and latched on to a terribly flawed hypothesis in large part to your political beliefs rather than any hard science?

    And exactly what are these "more consequences" you are talking about? Model results aren't data and there are no observable consequences that are related to greenhouse gasses.

    Observation, and a rather large rash of recently published papers tells us that science has grossly overestimated the sensitivity of the climate as well as the effects of climate change Here are just a few .

    Climate Sensitivity Estimated from Temperature Reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum
    New study in Science shows climate sensitivity overestimated | Watts Up With That?
    Climate CO2 Sensitivity Overestimated | The Resilient Earth
    On the warming in the tropical upper troposphere: Models versus observations
    THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Whoops: paper finds supposed positive feedback from low clouds in models is exaggerated 50%
    THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper shows models significantly underestimate cooling from clouds
    THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds models have it wrong again & predict excessive droughts

    Ice Sheet Loss Cut In Half | The Resilient Earth


    How long does nothing have to continue to happen before you wake up. The one most blatant "fingerprint" claimed to prove manmade climate change.....the hotspot.....is simply not there. That in and of itself falsifies the unfalsifiable hypothesis but you guys continue to beleive and accept and regurgitate whatever you are told even when it flies in the face of observation.

    Repeat after me.....models are not data.....models are not data.....models are not data.....

    model predictions do not supercede observation......model predictions do not supercede observation......model predictions do not supercede observation....
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2012

Share This Page