Uah sept global temp .37

[ScienceRocks]

Uah sept global temp .37 http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt

Seems to be a top 5 September globally! (4th!)

http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

 

[Abraham3]

Uah sept global temp .37 http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt

Seems to be a top 5 September globally! (4th!)

Latest Global Temps « Roy Spencer, PhD

Your first link didn't work for me, but your second was okay.

Did you use Spencer's UAH data intentionally?

 

[Old Rocks]

Dr. Spencer's data is very good to use in this context because of his stand on the issue of global warming. Also, he cannot afford to get caught in another really stupid mistake. And his graph makes it so glaringly clear that the direction of the temperature is up.

 

[bripat9643]

Dr. Spencer's data is very good to use in this context because of his stand on the issue of global warming. Also, he cannot afford to get caught in another really stupid mistake. And his graph makes it so glaringly clear that the direction of the temperature is up.

Actually it shows the direction of the temperature is flat or declining. Of course, drones like you see what they want to see.

 

[Abraham3]

Escalator effect?

 

[Abraham3]

Where, exactly, do you see temperatures declining? From 2007 to 2008? Try to visualize that data over a 30 year scale. I'm afeared it's still headed up.

And, of course, Spencer's data takes absolutely NO account of the ocean, which has been rising rather dramatically in temperature since 1998.

We should be looking at global heat content. Just as at the poles, we should be looking at ice volume. It's silly to intentionally blind one's self.

 

[tinydancer]

Geez louise. They admitted there has been no warming since 1998 and you warmers are still desperately clinging and praying for the end of the world as we know it.

What a thing to wish for.

 

[Abraham3]

Geez louise. They admitted there has been no warming since 1998 and you warmers are still desperately clinging and praying for the end of the world as we know it.

What a thing to wish for.

Jeez Louise, who is "they"?

The rate of warming dropped significantly, but the air and land temperature is still climbing while the oceans rate of increase went way up. The Earth's accumulation of heat has not slowed one iota.

We are not desperate, clinging or praying. We are holding to the truth, to objective evidence and to widely accepted science. It is only in the company of deniers that this forum has attracted that taking the position held by 97% of the scientists in a given field could be considered a bad thing.

 

[Abraham3]

Geez louise. They admitted there has been no warming since 1998 and you warmers are still desperately clinging and praying for the end of the world as we know it.

What a thing to wish for.

Jeez Louise, who is "they"?

The rate of warming dropped significantly, but the air and land temperature is still climbing while the oceans rate of increase went way up. The Earth's accumulation of heat has not slowed one iota.

We are not desperate, clinging or praying and we are most definitely not hoping for the end of the Earth - we are trying to prevent people like YOU from bringing a close approximation of it about. We are holding to the truth, to objective evidence and to widely accepted science. It is only in the company of the deniers that this forum has attracted, that taking the position held by 97% of the scientists in a given field could be considered a bad thing.

 

[bripat9643]

Where, exactly, do you see temperatures declining? From 2007 to 2008? Try to visualize that data over a 30 year scale. I'm afeared it's still headed up.

I see them declining between 1998 and the present.

And, of course, Spencer's data takes absolutely NO account of the ocean, which has been rising rather dramatically in temperature since 1998.

It takes account of the atmospheric temperatures over the ocean. Any claims about the temperature changes in the deep ocean don't have enough data to support them and are therefore abracadabra.

We should be looking at global heat content. Just as at the poles, we should be looking at ice volume. It's silly to intentionally blind one's self.

Yeah, right, now that the previous metric no longer supports your scheme for organized plunder, you have invented a new one.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Where, exactly, do you see temperatures declining? From 2007 to 2008? Try to visualize that data over a 30 year scale. I'm afeared it's still headed up.

I see them declining between 1998 and the present.

And, of course, Spencer's data takes absolutely NO account of the ocean, which has been rising rather dramatically in temperature since 1998.

It takes account of the atmospheric temperatures over the ocean. Any claims about the temperature changes in the deep ocean don't have enough data to support them and are therefore abracadabra.

We should be looking at global heat content. Just as at the poles, we should be looking at ice volume. It's silly to intentionally blind one's self.

Yeah, right, now that the previous metric no longer supports your scheme for organized plunder, you have invented a new one.

lol

 

[flacaltenn]

Where, exactly, do you see temperatures declining? From 2007 to 2008? Try to visualize that data over a 30 year scale. I'm afeared it's still headed up.

But it's not.. Call me (between 9 and 6 CST) when it does..

 

[flacaltenn]

Geez louise. They admitted there has been no warming since 1998 and you warmers are still desperately clinging and praying for the end of the world as we know it.

What a thing to wish for.

Jeez Louise, who is "they"?

The rate of warming dropped significantly, but the air and land temperature is still climbing while the oceans rate of increase went way up. The Earth's accumulation of heat has not slowed one iota.

We are not desperate, clinging or praying. We are holding to the truth, to objective evidence and to widely accepted science. It is only in the company of deniers that this forum has attracted that taking the position held by 97% of the scientists in a given field could be considered a bad thing.

The only warming YOU THINK you're seeing is NOT in ANY of the surface temp. records. It's in the deep ocean.. And there are several problems with that theory.. Not the least of which is that there is no plausible explanation for the DEEP oceans to suddenly start conveying heat from the surface just in recent years..

All your hopes pinned on a 2 page "letter" that has no scientific structure to it.. I'd call that "a wee bit" desperate...

 

[Old Rocks]

1979 -0.28
1980 +0.08

1982 -0.36
1983 +0.15

1984 -0.62
1987 +0.28

1989 -0.44
1991 +0.28

1992 -0.49
1995 +0.21

1997 -0.31
1998 +0.67

2000 -0.34
2002 +0.3

2003 -0.19
2005 +0.39

2005 -0.02
2007 +0.41

2008 -0.28
2010 +0.58

2012 -0.15
2013 +0.4

The low and high points on Dr. Spencer's graph. Note how the high points continue to get higher, and the low points also continue to get higher. In fact, for the 'cold year' that you denialists are braying about, note that the lowest point is +0.9. That is higher than any point in the first four years of the graph.

 

[flacaltenn]

1979 -0.28
1980 +0.08

1982 -0.36
1983 +0.15

1984 -0.62
1987 +0.28

1989 -0.44
1991 +0.28

1992 -0.49
1995 +0.21

1997 -0.31
1998 +0.67

2000 -0.34
2002 +0.3

2003 -0.19
2005 +0.39

2005 -0.02
2007 +0.41

2008 -0.28
2010 +0.58

2012 -0.15
2013 +0.4

The low and high points on Dr. Spencer's graph. Note how the high points continue to get higher, and the low points also continue to get higher. In fact, for the 'cold year' that you denialists are braying about, note that the lowest point is +0.9. That is higher than any point in the first four years of the graph.

You're seeing things.. and denying the tools of simple filtering and averaging..

 

[Abraham3]

1979 -0.28
1980 +0.08

1982 -0.36
1983 +0.15

1984 -0.62
1987 +0.28

1989 -0.44
1991 +0.28

1992 -0.49
1995 +0.21

1997 -0.31
1998 +0.67

2000 -0.34
2002 +0.3

2003 -0.19
2005 +0.39

2005 -0.02
2007 +0.41

2008 -0.28
2010 +0.58

2012 -0.15
2013 +0.4

The low and high points on Dr. Spencer's graph. Note how the high points continue to get higher, and the low points also continue to get higher. In fact, for the 'cold year' that you denialists are braying about, note that the lowest point is +0.9. That is higher than any point in the first four years of the graph.

You're seeing things.. and denying the tools of simple filtering and averaging..

I can NOT believe I am reading that! After all the screaming and hollering about manipulated data you gripe that he hasn't applied averaging and FILTERS? Fer chrissake!

 

[flacaltenn]

1979 -0.28
1980 +0.08

1982 -0.36
1983 +0.15

1984 -0.62
1987 +0.28

1989 -0.44
1991 +0.28

1992 -0.49
1995 +0.21

1997 -0.31
1998 +0.67

2000 -0.34
2002 +0.3

2003 -0.19
2005 +0.39

2005 -0.02
2007 +0.41

2008 -0.28
2010 +0.58

2012 -0.15
2013 +0.4

The low and high points on Dr. Spencer's graph. Note how the high points continue to get higher, and the low points also continue to get higher. In fact, for the 'cold year' that you denialists are braying about, note that the lowest point is +0.9. That is higher than any point in the first four years of the graph.

You're seeing things.. and denying the tools of simple filtering and averaging..

I can NOT believe I am reading that! After all the screaming and hollering about manipulated data you gripe that he hasn't applied averaging and FILTERS? Fer chrissake!

No.. I'm bitching that someone is using intuition and guesswork rather than relying on what the tools of mathematics tell us...

Get a grip..

 

[ScienceRocks]

1979 -0.28
1980 +0.08

1982 -0.36
1983 +0.15

1984 -0.62
1987 +0.28

1989 -0.44
1991 +0.28

1992 -0.49
1995 +0.21

1997 -0.31
1998 +0.67

2000 -0.34
2002 +0.3

2003 -0.19
2005 +0.39

2005 -0.02
2007 +0.41

2008 -0.28
2010 +0.58

2012 -0.15
2013 +0.4

The low and high points on Dr. Spencer's graph. Note how the high points continue to get higher, and the low points also continue to get higher. In fact, for the 'cold year' that you denialists are braying about, note that the lowest point is +0.9. That is higher than any point in the first four years of the graph.

You're seeing things.. and denying the tools of simple filtering and averaging..

Scatterplot the avg

1. Is max and 2. is min and the avg= means is 3.

 

[Abraham3]

You're seeing things.. and denying the tools of simple filtering and averaging..

I can NOT believe I am reading that! After all the screaming and hollering about manipulated data you gripe that he hasn't applied averaging and FILTERS? Fer chrissake!

No.. I'm bitching that someone is using intuition and guesswork rather than relying on what the tools of mathematics tell us...

What you're doing is behaving in a hypocritical manner.

 

[Old Rocks]

You're seeing things.. and denying the tools of simple filtering and averaging..

I can NOT believe I am reading that! After all the screaming and hollering about manipulated data you gripe that he hasn't applied averaging and FILTERS? Fer chrissake!

No.. I'm bitching that someone is using intuition and guesswork rather than relying on what the tools of mathematics tell us...

Get a grip..

LOL. These guys scream about models, then when presented with data that is just bare facts, maxima and minima over the last 34 years, bitch because it was not presented in the fashion of a model.

Those figures are the maxima and minima. Run a line on the maxima, it rises to the right. Run a line on the minima, it rises to the right. And Mathew and Dr. Spencer already presented you with an average and a running average. The fact that you are flapping yap when it is right there in your face by Dr. Spencer simply demonstrates that you are willing to tell bald faced lies with the contrary evidence sitting in front of you.