Giss shows that we had the second warmest Oct

[ScienceRocks]

Giss shows that we had the second warmest oct at .69c

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Giss shows that we had the second warmest oct at .69c

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

Once again the temperature has gone up 1.5 or so degrees. Of course temperatures are likely to be higher then previously because the temperature is higher over all.

 

[IanC]

Giss shows that we had the second warmest oct at .69c

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

from your link-

sources: GHCN-v3 1880-10/2012 + SST: 1880-11/1981 HadISST1
12/1981-10/2012 Reynolds v2
using elimination of outliers and homogeneity adjustment

with all the bogus adjustments, station drop-outs, etc, do you really think that there is a legitimate comparison between years?

 

[SSDD]

with all the bogus adjustments, station drop-outs, etc, do you really think that there is a legitimate comparison between years?

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.

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

 

[whitehall]

Who is "GISS" and why does the radical left accept the acronym's alleged data? It sounds good?

 

[IanC]

Who is "GISS" and why does the radical left accept the acronym's alleged data? It sounds good?

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.

 

[Politico]

Cool. I get an extra month of growing season.

 

[IanC]

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.

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.

 

[SSDD]

And, of course, the pictures of the Artic Ica Cap are all photoshoped.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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....

 

[Old Rocks]

Who is "GISS" and why does the radical left accept the acronym's alleged data? It sounds good?

Crap! You actually are asking that after posting all the shit you have posted? Ever hear of google? The word research have any meaning for you?

 

[Old Rocks]

and, of course, the pictures of the artic ica cap are all photoshoped.

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.

Ice Sheet Loss Cut In Half | The Resilient Earth

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.

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.

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.

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

but, it doesn't matter. It will be ignored until something really catastrophic happens in this nation.

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....

gigo

 

[whitehall]

The US didn't cause it. We didn't do it. There are theories that the world is emerging from a 10,000 year geological cycle of ice ages. We should be happy but the radical left turns even good news into a crisis. There is no reason for a global extortion scheme designed to reduce the US to a 3rd world country.

 

[SSDD]

Giss shows that we had the second warmest oct at .69c

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

When are you guys going to stop taking these people seriously?

NASA GISS caught changing past data again – violates Data Quality Act | Watts Up With That?

Data Tampering At USHCN/GISS | Real Science

Another Smoking GISS/USHCN Nuke | Real Science

Hiding The La Nina At GISS | Real Science

Data Tampering: GISS Caught Red-Handed Manipulating Data To Produce Arctic Climate History Revision

 

[Old Rocks]

Your sources are simply gigo. Real science from real scientists;

AGW Observer

 

[Mad Scientist]

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.

That's because emerging Economies like China, India and Brazil are exempt from the Enviro Laws that people like you wanna' handcuff the US with.

You know why? Business wants to move to cheap labor countries and shut down manufacturing in the US to create their own Monopolies.

The Environmental Movement was designed to get people like you to support VOLUNTARILY shutting their production down under the guise of "Saving the Planet".

You are supporting Big Business when you support the Enviro-Movement.

 

[SSDD]

Your sources are simply gigo. Real science from real scientists;

AGW Observer

It appears that you don't have any idea of what real science is. Here is a hint....output from computer models isn't it.

 

[SSDD]

You are supporting Big Business when you support the Enviro-Movement.

That sort of thinking requires getting past the emotional attachement they feel for the agw sham show. Proud parents are always the last to see that they have, in fact, raised a monster.