Discussion in 'Environment' started by Matthew, Jun 4, 2011.
It is the 4th already and no RSS or UAH data for May. Starting to wonder wtf is going on.
No data will be released till it has been adequately massaged.
MOney for that has been cut.
Get used to living with less.
Dr. Spencer, UAH, is the climatologist that Rush Limpbaugh claims as his own. He has already made one serious mistake in recording data, using a minus in the place of a plus, and severely damaged his credibility, after claiming that everyone elses data was bad, then had to back up, change his data, and realize that he was showing the same numbers as everybody else.
UAH Temperature Update for April, 2011: +0.12 deg. C « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.
what a twisted spin you have. Mears and Wentz of RSS, and Christie and Spencer of UAH have a good working relationship where they check each others work and make corrections accordingly. that is how science is supposed to work, unlike the hockey team scientists that hide their data and methods, and never admit or correct mistakes.
ps. the last correction was made by RSS, pointed out by UAH, who were warmly thanked and acknowledged, as is usual between the two groups. funny how going back and lowering the RSS numbers to be in line with UAH numbers isnt considered newsworthy or credibility damaging.
Rss for May 2011 5 0.126
We are pulling away from 2008. 2008 5 -0.130
Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 2 « Anti-Climate Change Extremism in Utah
The following is PART 2 of my extended critique of Roy Spencers The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the Worlds Top Climate Scientists (New York: Encounter Books, 2010). If you havent read Part 1, you should probably do so before reading this. See also Part 3.
Summary of Part 2: Roy Spencer repeatedly claims that most of the rest of the climate science community deliberately ignores natural sources of climate variation, but then contradicts himself by launching an inept attack on the standard explanation for climate change during the glacial-interglacial cycles of the last million years (i.e., they are initiated by Milankovitch cycles). The problems Spencer identifies are either red herrings or have been resolved, however, and he proposes no other explanation to take the place of the standard one. In fact, climate scientists have used paleoclimate data such as that for the ice ages to show that climate sensitivity is likely to be close to the range the IPCC favors. Therefore, it appears Roy Spencer is the one who wants to sweep established sources of natural climate variation under the rug.
It wasnt easy slogging through Roy Spencers latest book, The Great Global Warming Blunder, because although its only 176 pages, its incredibly repetitive. There is page after page of carping about how dense and corrupt his colleagues and the IPCC are, how hypocritical Al Gore is, and so on. Most of this is just mildly annoying, but in my opinion, the language he uses in some of the messages he repeats ad nauseum is patently dishonest. One such mantra is the claim that the climate science community has donned ideological blinders that prevent them from investigating natural sources of climate change. Here are a few examples.
a book review from a blog dedicated to slagging skeptics? hahaha
Rss .12c for May, 12th hottest
UAH .13c for May, 7th hottest(based on me going through the record since 1979)
Did you know that only during moderate to strong nino years up until the late 1990's would get as warm as we are now.
Please don't attack my post; I just love to play around with the numbers and predict what they will show next. I don't know if it is natural or man made or just screwing with the numbers, but I do know it is interesting.
Anyways the third pic is without the 1998 nino. It is a anomaly from hell...It is twice as far outside the base line as 2010 was.
Separate names with a comma.