Noaa says July was hottest in 136 years!

[edthecynic]

now you're just hallucinating there Ed.. Spencer doesn't spend his time with algorithms that can't be validated and calibrated. This "say anything you want" is just hysteria..

Also noticed you took a pass on all that "invented" data that goes into the surface thermometer record...

Argue with him, I'm just quoting him.

All data adjustments required to correct for these changes involve decisions regarding methodology, and different methodologies will lead to somewhat different results.
Roy Spencer, 2011

 

[flacaltenn]

now you're just hallucinating there Ed.. Spencer doesn't spend his time with algorithms that can't be validated and calibrated. This "say anything you want" is just hysteria..

Also noticed you took a pass on all that "invented" data that goes into the surface thermometer record...

Argue with him, I'm just quoting him.

All data adjustments required to correct for these changes involve decisions regarding methodology, and different methodologies will lead to somewhat different results.
Roy Spencer, 2011

Methodology does not imply ad hoc solutions. And it does not automatically imply instability or inconsistency.
Once a release like version 6.0 of UAH is made. You should expect a relatively "hands-off" operation on the data processing. And should expect CONSISTENCY with the different methodology employed at RSS..

Now this is VASTLY different than the desk farm of "experts" at GISS who are said to supply "expert judgement" station to station and in-between and every month. On details like all that invented data to fill in the MASSIVE gaps in coverage that are randomly spaced all over the globe. Consistency in "expert judgement" with a large team of "cookers" is not a good bet..

 

[edthecynic]

now you're just hallucinating there Ed.. Spencer doesn't spend his time with algorithms that can't be validated and calibrated. This "say anything you want" is just hysteria..

Also noticed you took a pass on all that "invented" data that goes into the surface thermometer record...

Argue with him, I'm just quoting him.

All data adjustments required to correct for these changes involve decisions regarding methodology, and different methodologies will lead to somewhat different results.
Roy Spencer, 2011

Methodology does not imply ad hoc solutions. And it does not automatically imply instability or inconsistency.
Once a release like version 6.0 of UAH is made. You should expect a relatively "hands-off" operation on the data processing. And should expect CONSISTENCY with the different methodology employed at RSS..

Now this is VASTLY different than the desk farm of "experts" at GISS who are said to supply "expert judgement" station to station and in-between and every month. On details like all that invented data to fill in the MASSIVE gaps in coverage that are randomly spaced all over the globe. Consistency in "expert judgement" with a large team of "cookers" is not a good bet..

Satellites have GAPS too! Latitudes above +85 and below -85 degrees are excluded as well as altitudes above 1500 meters. And the only "consistency" we can expect from RSS and UAH is to consistently underestimate global warming.

 

[flacaltenn]

now you're just hallucinating there Ed.. Spencer doesn't spend his time with algorithms that can't be validated and calibrated. This "say anything you want" is just hysteria..

Also noticed you took a pass on all that "invented" data that goes into the surface thermometer record...

Argue with him, I'm just quoting him.

All data adjustments required to correct for these changes involve decisions regarding methodology, and different methodologies will lead to somewhat different results.
Roy Spencer, 2011

Methodology does not imply ad hoc solutions. And it does not automatically imply instability or inconsistency.
Once a release like version 6.0 of UAH is made. You should expect a relatively "hands-off" operation on the data processing. And should expect CONSISTENCY with the different methodology employed at RSS..

Now this is VASTLY different than the desk farm of "experts" at GISS who are said to supply "expert judgement" station to station and in-between and every month. On details like all that invented data to fill in the MASSIVE gaps in coverage that are randomly spaced all over the globe. Consistency in "expert judgement" with a large team of "cookers" is not a good bet..

Satellites have GAPS too! Latitudes above +85 and below -85 degrees are excluded as well as altitudes above 1500 meters. And the only "consistency" we can expect from RSS and UAH is to consistently underestimate global warming.

Oh my.. Gaps above 85deg latitude.. So tell me Ed --- when Hadley or GISS wants to find another 0.04degC to make a press release about record warming -- WHERE do THEY get the data to fill in their shitty Polar coverage?

YEPPERS -- they infill with satellite data and use some damn crude altitude conversions to fudge --- I mean converge to their 3 meter high temperature poles.

85 lat eh? How about AT LEAST a few thermometers north of 60 man...

You meant satellite gaps BELOW 1500m.. Perfectly good all the way up... And it's not a gap. It's a weighted VOLUME all the way down to the deck. Which attenuates a lot of urban heating and homogenizes air masses so that temp. inversions and warmer air aloft in the troposphere don't give errant readings. If there a warming signal -- that's a better way to find it..

Look -- you're totally a troglodyte. Don't like satellite measurements. LOVE them 100,000 thermometers.
Have a good life believing in ancient, easily abused methods. This is waste..

 

[edthecynic]

You meant satellite gaps BELOW 1500m.. Perfectly good all the way up...

No, you are full of shit yet again, as usual, just pulling shit out of your ass!

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/docs/readme.msu

Sectional definitions for uahncdc.XX files

Global -85 to +85 latitude
Hemispheric 0 to +/- 85 latitude
Extratropics +/- 20 to +/- 85 latitude
Polar +/- 60 to +/- 85 latitude



*************************REMEMBER, USE CAUTION*****************

IN EXTRATROPICS FOR MARCH, APRIL AND AUGUST 1981, NOVEMBER 1979
due to missing data.

ALSO BE CAUTIOUS USING LT AND MT OVER HIGH TERRAIN ( >1500 M)

The areas of poor anomaly values are : Tibetian Plateau,
Antarctica, Greenland and the narrow spine of the Andes.

JOHN CHRISTY UAH: 256-961-7763
[email protected]

 

[Mr. H.]

And God said "NOAA, build my Ark".

 

[flacaltenn]

No, you are full of shit yet again, as usual, just pulling shit out of your ass!

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/docs/readme.msu

Sectional definitions for uahncdc.XX files

Global -85 to +85 latitude
Hemispheric 0 to +/- 85 latitude
Extratropics +/- 20 to +/- 85 latitude
Polar +/- 60 to +/- 85 latitude



*************************REMEMBER, USE CAUTION*****************

IN EXTRATROPICS FOR MARCH, APRIL AND AUGUST 1981, NOVEMBER 1979
due to missing data.

ALSO BE CAUTIOUS USING LT AND MT OVER HIGH TERRAIN ( >1500 M)

The areas of poor anomaly values are : Tibetian Plateau,
Antarctica, Greenland and the narrow spine of the Andes.

JOHN CHRISTY UAH: 256-961-7763

Pffft --- You have no idea what all that was.. How many MSU satellites were up in 1979 and 1981?? AMSU measurements cover the surface to stratosphere. No gaps, Overlaps between channels..

You're absolutely fanatical to find some shit somewhere -- ain't you? Have fun...
Fanatics freak me out. Outta here...

 

[Mr. H.]

Precisely why CAN'T we harken back to Biblical times?

We build a big fucking Ark and float this shit out.

Rising sea levels? No problem.

Rising temperatures? What's SPF 80 for anyway?

Calm your jets, already.

 

[edthecynic]

No, you are full of shit yet again, as usual, just pulling shit out of your ass!

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/docs/readme.msu

Sectional definitions for uahncdc.XX files

Global -85 to +85 latitude
Hemispheric 0 to +/- 85 latitude
Extratropics +/- 20 to +/- 85 latitude
Polar +/- 60 to +/- 85 latitude



*************************REMEMBER, USE CAUTION*****************

IN EXTRATROPICS FOR MARCH, APRIL AND AUGUST 1981, NOVEMBER 1979
due to missing data.

ALSO BE CAUTIOUS USING LT AND MT OVER HIGH TERRAIN ( >1500 M)

The areas of poor anomaly values are : Tibetian Plateau,
Antarctica, Greenland and the narrow spine of the Andes.

JOHN CHRISTY UAH: 256-961-7763

Pffft --- You have no idea what all that was.. How many MSU satellites were up in 1979 and 1981?? AMSU measurements cover the surface to stratosphere. No gaps, Overlaps between channels..

You're absolutely fanatical to find some shit somewhere -- ain't you? Have fun...
Fanatics freak me out. Outta here...

When caught making up bullshit, deniers make up more bullshit.

 

[flacaltenn]

YOU --- take a random note in a data file and assume you've found evidence tampering and are ready to lynch folks. The 1500m reference is to MOUNTAINS and how you interpret the temperature when the terrain is HIGHER than your measurement. NOT A GAP..

No oxygen 1500 m DEEP into a mountain top dummy.. IN PRACTICE, that is avoided by weighting the band closest to surface with the bands higher up.. Start with a chart of the Altitudes covered in MSUnits.. No gaps.. From the RSS Website..

 

[Old Rocks]

No matter how much one argues about the extent or degree of warming, the ice is the final arbitrator. And it has been melting for the entirety of my life. And is now melting faster than at any other time in my life.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The oceans are rising! 3mm per year! That is a god given fact.

 

[IanC]

God may have spoken to Matthew but the tide gauge data are not within his hearing range.

 

[flacaltenn]

No matter how much one argues about the extent or degree of warming, the ice is the final arbitrator. And it has been melting for the entirety of my life. And is now melting faster than at any other time in my life.

Ice don't say SHIT about tiny temperature increases. You melt the same approx amount of ice with 1 day at 33degF as you do with 100 days at 32.01degF. And you don't even HAVE 100 days to melt ice in Greenland or the Arctic. Ice does nothing but GROW most of the year at the poles. And rates of retreats of glaciers are really about VOLUME not distance..

And I can't abide the 15% sea ice coverage rule telling you how much the North Pole is shrinking..
I couldn't care less about ice.. It's been melting for 20,000 years.
And I definitely don't want to live in a climate where GLACIERS ARE GROWING??? Do you?

 

[Old Rocks]

Of course you don't care about ice, it blows your whole schtick out of water.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

No matter how much one argues about the extent or degree of warming, the ice is the final arbitrator. And it has been melting for the entirety of my life. And is now melting faster than at any other time in my life.

Because of soot

Soot and Dirt Is Melting Snow and Ice Around the World

New report highlights increased loss in Greenland ice cap from dust and soot.

Soot and Dirt Is Melting Snow and Ice Around the World

 

[Billy_Bob]

Oh my, we are still cooling. Yessireeeeeeeeeeeeee Bob!

temperature trend for El Niño, La Niña and neutral years, up to 2013, based on NASA GISS dataset.

Two hottest years ever: 2014 will set new world temperature record – and 2015 will break it

I see your clinging on to your failed models and adjusted data.. The Satellites show a very different trend, one that lays your graph waste as a fabricated lie... Tell me old fool, should not the atmosphere be 3-4 times warmer to raise ocean temps? IF were going to talk physics and thermal dynamics we should have some hard evidence that were burning up...

 

[Billy_Bob]

The BEST program pretty well verified what the scientists have been telling us about the land based record. Again, well done science, discarded in favor of a politically flavored alternative reality.

BEST failed at basic tasks.. Get some new material.. BEST failed to disprove UHI and touted the rise as what should be seen in rural stations. They threw away the US-CRN data because it showed their premise a lie..

 

[Old Rocks]

Poor ol' Billy Bob. Still insisting that he knows more than all the scientists in the world. And still making claims for which he has zero backing.

 

[jc456]

Poor ol' Billy Bob. Still insisting that he knows more than all the scientists in the world. And still making claims for which he has zero backing.

so the question I have is Billy accurate with his statement: "They threw away the US-CRN data because it showed their premise a lie."?

Yes or no. Not poor Billy, answer the question is he correct or not.