July 2019 Was Not the Warmest on Record

[baileyn45]

I do listen to NOAA. They cannot, will not answer. I do not listen to propaganda. which is why I demand data. NOAA, the IPCC will not provide it. They provide 'homogenized", 'extrapolated" data

The raw data is on online. Go get it. It's not easy to download, being how many gigabytes it all is, but you can find it if you look.

So why did you peddle a fake story about NOAA not providing data? Oh, that's right. You only know what your cult told you, and you cult told you NOAA was hiding data.

I'll ask again, explain to me how the average temperature of the planet Earth is derived.

The short answer -- by averaging data from things called "thermometers". Really high tech stuff here.

The long answer, you can start here.

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP v4)

I'm waiting, been waiting for years. No answer, nothing.No one even tries, ever. Not even an attempt, ever. Not once, ever. No one even tries, explain this to me.

You could have just looked it up yourself, you know. Do we have to spoonfeed everything to you?

Remember, when the whole world says you're wrong, it's almost certain that you're wrong. You are not a special snowflake who can see what the rest of the world fails to see. If you're declaring the whole world is part of a conspiracy against you, that paints you as a paranoid conspiracy cultist.

You don't seem to realize just how bad that data is. Half the planet's land mass has no data at all. Even in the US, the best system on the planet, according to NOAA they have 1218 pristine sites. Sites that are free enough of siting issues to be trusted. I did some quick calculations in the area that I live and realized that the area is so large that I can regularly see 5 even 8 degrees C range of temps in that area. So where in my area is the official site? It stinks. Then you have the issue of historical data and how thorough that might have been, or not.

The fact is these people are making claims of certainty that they can't begin to back up. And as others have noted the changing of historical data on a regular basis is just plain beyond the pale. The whole thing just stinks.

 

[mamooth]

You don't seem to realize just how bad that data is.

The data is excellent. If someone told you otherwise, they lied to you.

Half the planet's land mass has no data at all.

Nonsense.

Even in the US, the best system on the planet, according to NOAA they have 1218 pristine sites.

Far more than are necessary. If you removed 90% of them, the results wouldn't change.

Sites that are free enough of siting issues to be trusted.

Those "pristine" sites show a bit _more_ warming that the "bad" sites. And thus that conspiracy theory dies.

I did some quick calculations in the area that I live and realized that the area is so large that I can regularly see 5 even 8 degrees C range of temps in that area.

Using anomalies instead of absolute temps solves that problem nicely.

So where in my area is the official site?

As long as it stays in the same place, it doesn't matter.

The fact is these people are making claims of certainty that they can't begin to back up. And as others have noted the changing of historical data on a regular basis is just plain beyond the pale. The whole thing just stinks.

Your failure to understand a process does not mean the process is flawed.

 

[mamooth]

They say they ADJUST the GHCN data,

Well, yes. After all, it would be fraudulent and dishonest to not to not correct for known errors. And here you are, advocating for such fraud

Here's raw and corrected GHCN data plotted to together. They're nearly identical. The difference is about 0.01C

What's more, that doesn't include sea surface temperatures. SSTs are corrected the other way, making the past look much warmer and the warming look much smaller, and that effect swamps the tiny GHCN corrections.

The corrections have made the warming look _smaller_. Thus, your conspiracy theory is debunked.

 

[mamooth]

Of what use, do tell, is an "average" temperature on a planet in which the daily maximum and minimum temperatures spans 200+ degrees?

So according to your idiocy, a temperature range of -100 to +100 has the same information as a temperature range of -50 to +150. No wonder everyone laughs at you. Normal people understand the usefulness of averages.

And of what value is that average if over half of it is simply made up?

When your auto-response to all hard data is "IT'S A CONSPIRACY!", that kind of defines you as a lunatic conspiracy cultist.

 

[baileyn45]

You don't seem to realize just how bad that data is.

The data is excellent. If someone told you otherwise, they lied to you.

Half the planet's land mass has no data at all.

Nonsense.

Even in the US, the best system on the planet, according to NOAA they have 1218 pristine sites.

Far more than are necessary. If you removed 90% of them, the results wouldn't change.

Sites that are free enough of siting issues to be trusted.

Those "pristine" sites show a bit _more_ warming that the "bad" sites. And thus that conspiracy theory dies.

I did some quick calculations in the area that I live and realized that the area is so large that I can regularly see 5 even 8 degrees C range of temps in that area.

Using anomalies instead of absolute temps solves that problem nicely.

So where in my area is the official site?

As long as it stays in the same place, it doesn't matter.

The fact is these people are making claims of certainty that they can't begin to back up. And as others have noted the changing of historical data on a regular basis is just plain beyond the pale. The whole thing just stinks.

Your failure to understand a process does not mean the process is flawed.

This map impresses you? From what I can see, Greenland is virtually empty, Antarctica is empty, the majority of Africa is empty, Canada is sparse at best, Siberia is sparse at best, central Australia is virtually empty, central Asia is sparse at best, central South America is sparse at best. You do realize that each dot represents one thermometer. Consider me not impressed.

Just for arguments sake lets take a look at the US. The map above shows the US with excellent coverage. Now let's look at a census of the quality of the US sites.

Reference for site ratings: NOAA's Climate Reference Network Site Handbook Section 2.2.1

While this is quite old, it makes the point. Keep in mind these are the "good" sites. And this is the best network on the planet.

Far more than are necessary. If you removed 90% of them, the results wouldn't change.

That's absurd. If you removed 90% of the sites, my home state of Ohio would have 2 sites. Let's say one is in Cleveland and the other in Cincinnati. Say the entire state is at 50 F, a cold front moves in and extends 10 miles south of Cleve, drops the temp 10 F. Well over 90% of the state is still at 50 F. Let's say the front then moves south to 10 miles north of Cinn, over 90% of the state is at 40 F. How would those 2 sites differentiate between the two scenarios? They can't. In one scenario the vast majority of area in the state is 40 F, in the other the vast majority of area in the state is 50 F. The data would remain the same. That's not good.

Those "pristine" sites show a bit _more_ warming that the "bad" sites. And thus that conspiracy theory dies.

I'd have to see evidence of that. Particularly considering the serious issues with the no pristine sites.

Using anomalies instead of absolute temps solves that problem nicely.

Care to explain that?

As long as it stays in the same place, it doesn't matter.

Of course it does. If the official temp reading does not reflect the actual temp of the majority of the area for which it's being used as official data, the data sucks. I mean if what you're saying was true we could just use one site in the middle of the country, as long as it doesn't move.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You don't seem to realize just how bad that data is.

The data is excellent. If someone told you otherwise, they lied to you.

Half the planet's land mass has no data at all.

Nonsense.

Even in the US, the best system on the planet, according to NOAA they have 1218 pristine sites.

Far more than are necessary. If you removed 90% of them, the results wouldn't change.

Sites that are free enough of siting issues to be trusted.

Those "pristine" sites show a bit _more_ warming that the "bad" sites. And thus that conspiracy theory dies.

I did some quick calculations in the area that I live and realized that the area is so large that I can regularly see 5 even 8 degrees C range of temps in that area.

Using anomalies instead of absolute temps solves that problem nicely.

So where in my area is the official site?

As long as it stays in the same place, it doesn't matter.

The fact is these people are making claims of certainty that they can't begin to back up. And as others have noted the changing of historical data on a regular basis is just plain beyond the pale. The whole thing just stinks.

Your failure to understand a process does not mean the process is flawed.

This map impresses you? From what I can see, Greenland is virtually empty, Antarctica is empty, the majority of Africa is empty, Canada is sparse at best, Siberia is sparse at best, central Australia is virtually empty, central Asia is sparse at best, central South America is sparse at best. You do realize that each dot represents one thermometer. Consider me not impressed.

Just for arguments sake lets take a look at the US. The map above shows the US with excellent coverage. Now let's look at a census of the quality of the US sites.

Reference for site ratings: NOAA's Climate Reference Network Site Handbook Section 2.2.1

While this is quite old, it makes the point. Keep in mind these are the "good" sites. And this is the best network on the planet.

Far more than are necessary. If you removed 90% of them, the results wouldn't change.

That's absurd. If you removed 90% of the sites, my home state of Ohio would have 2 sites. Let's say one is in Cleveland and the other in Cincinnati. Say the entire state is at 50 F, a cold front moves in and extends 10 miles south of Cleve, drops the temp 10 F. Well over 90% of the state is still at 50 F. Let's say the front then moves south to 10 miles north of Cinn, over 90% of the state is at 40 F. How would those 2 sites differentiate between the two scenarios? They can't. In one scenario the vast majority of area in the state is 40 F, in the other the vast majority of area in the state is 50 F. The data would remain the same. That's not good.

Those "pristine" sites show a bit _more_ warming that the "bad" sites. And thus that conspiracy theory dies.

I'd have to see evidence of that. Particularly considering the serious issues with the no pristine sites.

Using anomalies instead of absolute temps solves that problem nicely.

Care to explain that?

As long as it stays in the same place, it doesn't matter.

Of course it does. If the official temp reading does not reflect the actual temp of the majority of the area for which it's being used as official data, the data sucks. I mean if what you're saying was true we could just use one site in the middle of the country, as long as it doesn't move.

The average USHCN site has an error range of +/- 2-3 deg C (over 90% of the stations are above +/- 2 deg C). (This makes the margin of possible real temps 4-6 deg C). They then tell us that their products are accurate to +/- 0.02 Deg C... Really? How is that possible when the majority of the data collecting devices have MOE 100 times that? Most of these alarmist can not see the problem in this..

 

[baileyn45]

You don't seem to realize just how bad that data is.

The data is excellent. If someone told you otherwise, they lied to you.

Half the planet's land mass has no data at all.

Nonsense.

Even in the US, the best system on the planet, according to NOAA they have 1218 pristine sites.

Far more than are necessary. If you removed 90% of them, the results wouldn't change.

Sites that are free enough of siting issues to be trusted.

Those "pristine" sites show a bit _more_ warming that the "bad" sites. And thus that conspiracy theory dies.

I did some quick calculations in the area that I live and realized that the area is so large that I can regularly see 5 even 8 degrees C range of temps in that area.

Using anomalies instead of absolute temps solves that problem nicely.

So where in my area is the official site?

As long as it stays in the same place, it doesn't matter.

The fact is these people are making claims of certainty that they can't begin to back up. And as others have noted the changing of historical data on a regular basis is just plain beyond the pale. The whole thing just stinks.

Your failure to understand a process does not mean the process is flawed.

This map impresses you? From what I can see, Greenland is virtually empty, Antarctica is empty, the majority of Africa is empty, Canada is sparse at best, Siberia is sparse at best, central Australia is virtually empty, central Asia is sparse at best, central South America is sparse at best. You do realize that each dot represents one thermometer. Consider me not impressed.

Just for arguments sake lets take a look at the US. The map above shows the US with excellent coverage. Now let's look at a census of the quality of the US sites.

Reference for site ratings: NOAA's Climate Reference Network Site Handbook Section 2.2.1

While this is quite old, it makes the point. Keep in mind these are the "good" sites. And this is the best network on the planet.

Far more than are necessary. If you removed 90% of them, the results wouldn't change.

That's absurd. If you removed 90% of the sites, my home state of Ohio would have 2 sites. Let's say one is in Cleveland and the other in Cincinnati. Say the entire state is at 50 F, a cold front moves in and extends 10 miles south of Cleve, drops the temp 10 F. Well over 90% of the state is still at 50 F. Let's say the front then moves south to 10 miles north of Cinn, over 90% of the state is at 40 F. How would those 2 sites differentiate between the two scenarios? They can't. In one scenario the vast majority of area in the state is 40 F, in the other the vast majority of area in the state is 50 F. The data would remain the same. That's not good.

Those "pristine" sites show a bit _more_ warming that the "bad" sites. And thus that conspiracy theory dies.

I'd have to see evidence of that. Particularly considering the serious issues with the no pristine sites.

Using anomalies instead of absolute temps solves that problem nicely.

Care to explain that?

As long as it stays in the same place, it doesn't matter.

Of course it does. If the official temp reading does not reflect the actual temp of the majority of the area for which it's being used as official data, the data sucks. I mean if what you're saying was true we could just use one site in the middle of the country, as long as it doesn't move.

The average USHCN site has an error range of +/- 2-3 deg C (over 90% of the stations are above +/- 2 deg C). (This makes the margin of possible real temps 4-6 deg C). They then tell us that their products are accurate to +/- 0.02 Deg C... Really? How is that possible when the majority of the data collecting devices have MOE 100 times that? Most of these alarmist can not see the problem in this..

I hear people point out similar problems with satellites and sea level. Satellites that can't discern their own position in relation to a stationery gps dome to within 2mm are somehow going to tell us the level of a fluctuating liquid covering 70% of the planet to a tenth of a mm.