Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
What's it matter? You'll NEVER accept that the high priests of your cult are lying to you.I'm still waiting to hear why WUWT plotted that monthly readings against Farenheit degrees and what might be the statistical significance of a slope of 0.005C/month, particularly given RMS and STD values almost three orders of magnitude larger.
Stupid kid. I've already shown you the pro-AGW cult gets FAR more money than the skeptics.Perhaps that has something to do with over 12,000 peer reviewed studies and the opinion of 97% of the world's experts.
When are you going to figure out that the people feeding you your marching orders have the GREATEST motivation for dishonesty and that the stories they're feeding you swing from irrelevant, to illogical to false?
Perhaps that has something to do with over 12,000 peer reviewed studies and the opinion of 97% of the world's experts.
When are you going to figure out that the people feeding you your marching orders have the GREATEST motivation for dishonesty and that the stories they're feeding you swing from irrelevant, to illogical to false?
while the US is only a small percentage of the world's land mass, and even less of the total surface
What is this statement supposed to mean Ian? What is the difference between "land mass" and "total surface"? Does the US have a larger geocentric radius than the rest of the planet?
I'm still waiting to hear why WUWT plotted that monthly readings against Farenheit degrees and what might be the statistical significance of a slope of 0.003C/month, particularly given RMS and STD values almost three orders of magnitude larger.
The warmest places on earth are invariably the places with the poorest coverage requiring the most infilling of data...
Wouldn't know. It's not the skeptical side that's fudging and fabricating. It's been proven to you unquestionably time and again, but you still trot out your failed cult dogma.The warmest places on earth are invariably the places with the poorest coverage requiring the most infilling of data...
Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, ... conspiracy alert!
If all the data didn't say you're cranks, you wouldn't have to keep putting out this constant barrage of lunatic conspiracy theories. It must suck to be a denier, forced to constantly fudge and fabricate on behalf of their political cult.
A serious error was found in the NASA temperature data for the United States in 2007. When corrected, it was determined that the warmest year in the past 100 years was not in 1998 and 2006 as previously believed, but was 1934, followed 1998. 1921 became the third hottest year, followed by 2006 and 1933. Out of the five hottest years, three occurred in the 1920s and 30s and only two were in the past 10 years. Notice that the US data do not have the same steep increase in temperature shown in the corrupted data of Britain's Climate Research Unit's data in the graph above. This dramatically changes scientists understanding of the importance of the warming that has occurred since 1975. The period between 1995 and 2009 is no warmer than the period between 1920 and 1935. This error in the NASA data has lead to discoveries of other errors in the data which are raising concern about data integrity of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies.
It's not cherry-picked; it's all the data they have from the new stations sited the way they're supposed to be. And they started collecting the data in 2005.Secondly, the OPs graph DOES cherry pick data from a relatively short time period. So funny how people need to lie to try and justify their position.
A serious error was found in the NASA temperature data for the United States in 2007. When corrected, it was determined that the warmest year in the past 100 years was not in 1998 and 2006 as previously believed, but was 1934, followed 1998. 1921 became the third hottest year, followed by 2006 and 1933. Out of the five hottest years, three occurred in the 1920s and 30s and only two were in the past 10 years. Notice that the US data do not have the same steep increase in temperature shown in the corrupted data of Britain's Climate Research Unit's data in the graph above. This dramatically changes scientists understanding of the importance of the warming that has occurred since 1975. The period between 1995 and 2009 is no warmer than the period between 1920 and 1935. This error in the NASA data has lead to discoveries of other errors in the data which are raising concern about data integrity of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies.
This bogus claim has been refuted multiple times on these forums.
Bullshit.
Everyone who maintains such records with the aim of making them as accurate as possible, will make adjustments. For some time now, denier bloggers have been charging that climate organizations were adjusting past temperatures downwards to increase the degree of warming. Now NOAA moves temperatures in the opposite direction and what is the response? This is not acceptable. It is not being honest with the public. It is not scientific. It violates the Data Quality Act.
Bullshit.
just because NOAA gets caught fudging the data and then reduces some of the 'adjustments' for a PR effect, that doesnt mean we should be happy. the corrections GISS made in 2007 after the Y2K bug was found were all reversed and revised by 2009 to the point that you would never have know that they had been made.
A serious error was found in the NASA temperature data for the United States in 2007. When corrected, it was determined that the warmest year in the past 100 years was not in 1998 and 2006 as previously believed, but was 1934, followed 1998. 1921 became the third hottest year, followed by 2006 and 1933. Out of the five hottest years, three occurred in the 1920s and 30s and only two were in the past 10 years. Notice that the US data do not have the same steep increase in temperature shown in the corrupted data of Britain's Climate Research Unit's data in the graph above. This dramatically changes scientists understanding of the importance of the warming that has occurred since 1975. The period between 1995 and 2009 is no warmer than the period between 1920 and 1935. This error in the NASA data has lead to discoveries of other errors in the data which are raising concern about data integrity of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies.
This bogus claim has been refuted multiple times on these forums.
Not credibly.
NOAA Reinstates July 1936 As Hottest Month On Record | The Daily Caller
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, criticized for manipulating temperature records to create a warming trend, has now been caught warming the past and cooling the present.
July 2012 became the hottest month on record in the U.S. during a summer that was declared “too hot to handle” by NASA scientists. That summer more than half the country was experiencing drought and wildfires had scorched more than 1.3 million acres of land, according to NASA.
According to NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in 2012, the “average temperature for the contiguous U.S. during July was 77.6°F, 3.3°F above the 20th century average, marking the warmest July and all-time warmest month on record for the nation in a period of record that dates back to 1895.”
“The previous warmest July for the nation was July 1936, when the average U.S. temperature was 77.4°F,” NOAA said in 2012.
This statement by NOAA was still available on their website when checked by The Daily Caller News Foundation. But when meteorologist and climate blogger Anthony Watts went to check the NOAA data on Sunday he found that the science agency had quietly reinstated July 1936 as the hottest month on record in the U.S.
“Two years ago during the scorching summer of 2012, July 1936 lost its place on the leaderboard and July 2012 became the hottest month on record in the United States,” Watts wrote. “Now, as if by magic, and according to NOAA’s own data, July 1936 is now the hottest month on record again. The past, present, and future all seems to be ‘adjustable’ in NOAA’s world.”
--
“You can’t get any clearer proof of NOAA adjusting past temperatures,” Watts wrote. “This isn’t just some issue with gridding, or anomalies, or method, it is about NOAA not being able to present historical climate information of the United States accurately.”
“In one report they give one number, and in another they give a different one with no explanation to the public as to why,” Watts continued. “This is not acceptable. It is not being honest with the public. It is not scientific. It violates the Data Quality Act.”
just because NOAA gets caught fudging the data and then reduces some of the 'adjustments' for a PR effect, that doesnt mean we should be happy. the corrections GISS made in 2007 after the Y2K bug was found were all reversed and revised by 2009 to the point that you would never have know that they had been made.
Don't kid yourself. There is zero connection between your complaints and what actions NOAA takes with their data. Zero.
You're exactly like the hillbilly who goes to the zoo the first time and, seeing a giraffe, says defiantly, "There ain't no such animal."Bullshit.
Everyone who maintains such records with the aim of making them as accurate as possible, will make adjustments. For some time now, denier bloggers have been charging that climate organizations were adjusting past temperatures downwards to increase the degree of warming. Now NOAA moves temperatures in the opposite direction and what is the response? This is not acceptable. It is not being honest with the public. It is not scientific. It violates the Data Quality Act.
Bullshit.
Perhaps that has something to do with over 12,000 peer reviewed studies and the opinion of 97% of the world's experts.
When are you going to figure out that the people feeding you your marching orders have the GREATEST motivation for dishonesty and that the stories they're feeding you swing from irrelevant, to illogical to false?
