Long-term warming trend continued in 2017: NASA, NOAA

[Toddsterpatriot]

Good plan.. I approve. So you should stick to basics. Like the ORIGINAL calculations of chemistry, physics and geometry that calculate the RAW warming power at the surface of a trace gas like CO2 --- just like your ancient pals Arrhenius and others did and NOT SPECULATE about Climate Sensitivities factors that have been REDUCED for decades now and are STILL pretty much primitive guesses. Even Arrhenius had to guess to LEAP from a "power level" of watts/m2 to Degrees.

It's how I approach most any tool I use in science.

Yes, we should always use 19th C etc calculations instead of more accurate modern ones for things like Planetary distance, Geologic age (without Isotopic dating), etc, etc.

That's typical flat earth BS from you to justify your now admittedly backwards ideas.
`

Yes, we should always use 19th C etc calculations instead of more accurate modern ones

And why use the actual historic temperature data when you can make it more accurate by "adjusting" it?

 

[abu afak]

Good plan.. I approve. So you should stick to basics. Like the ORIGINAL calculations of chemistry, physics and geometry that calculate the RAW warming power at the surface of a trace gas like CO2 --- just like your ancient pals Arrhenius and others did and NOT SPECULATE about Climate Sensitivities factors that have been REDUCED for decades now and are STILL pretty much primitive guesses. Even Arrhenius had to guess to LEAP from a "power level" of watts/m2 to Degrees.

It's how I approach most any tool I use in science.

Yes, we should always use 19th C etc calculations instead of more accurate modern ones for things like Planetary distance, Geologic age (without Isotopic dating), etc, etc.

That's typical flat earth BS from you to justify your now admittedly backwards ideas.
`

Yes, we should always use 19th C etc calculations instead of more accurate modern ones

And why use the actual historic temperature data when you can make it more accurate by "adjusting" it?

Precisely.
Because from time to time on any long term msrt, adjustment for accuracy becomes necessary. To jibe New gauges with old, different or increased placement of old ones, etc

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Good plan.. I approve. So you should stick to basics. Like the ORIGINAL calculations of chemistry, physics and geometry that calculate the RAW warming power at the surface of a trace gas like CO2 --- just like your ancient pals Arrhenius and others did and NOT SPECULATE about Climate Sensitivities factors that have been REDUCED for decades now and are STILL pretty much primitive guesses. Even Arrhenius had to guess to LEAP from a "power level" of watts/m2 to Degrees.

It's how I approach most any tool I use in science.

Yes, we should always use 19th C etc calculations instead of more accurate modern ones for things like Planetary distance, Geologic age (without Isotopic dating), etc, etc.

That's typical flat earth BS from you to justify your now admittedly backwards ideas.
`

Yes, we should always use 19th C etc calculations instead of more accurate modern ones

And why use the actual historic temperature data when you can make it more accurate by "adjusting" it?

Precisely.
Because from time to time on any long term msrt, adjustment for accuracy becomes necessary. To jibe New gauges with old, different or increased placement of old ones, etc

Because from time to time on any long term msrt, adjustment for accuracy becomes necessary.

Exactly! We have to adjust temperature records from the 1930s, to make them accurate.

DERP!

 

[skookerasbil]

Good plan.. I approve. So you should stick to basics. Like the ORIGINAL calculations of chemistry, physics and geometry that calculate the RAW warming power at the surface of a trace gas like CO2 --- just like your ancient pals Arrhenius and others did and NOT SPECULATE about Climate Sensitivities factors that have been REDUCED for decades now and are STILL pretty much primitive guesses. Even Arrhenius had to guess to LEAP from a "power level" of watts/m2 to Degrees.

It's how I approach most any tool I use in science.

Yes, we should always use 19th C etc calculations instead of more accurate modern ones for things like Planetary distance, Geologic age (without Isotopic dating), etc, etc.

That's typical flat earth BS from you to justify your now admittedly backwards ideas.
`

Yes, we should always use 19th C etc calculations instead of more accurate modern ones

And why use the actual historic temperature data when you can make it more accurate by "adjusting" it?

Precisely.
Because from time to time on any long term msrt, adjustment for accuracy becomes necessary. To jibe New gauges with old, different or increased placement of old ones, etc

But that's what people in the climate change club say....it flew with people in the public over a decade ago. Now they call bs....so it's part of the reason that in terms of climate change action, we aren't seeing......dick. It's about #50 on the Congressional "to do" list. In other words, nobody is caring and the public thinks temperature monitors in the middle of deserts is ghey!

 

[flacaltenn]

Good plan.. I approve. So you should stick to basics. Like the ORIGINAL calculations of chemistry, physics and geometry that calculate the RAW warming power at the surface of a trace gas like CO2 --- just like your ancient pals Arrhenius and others did and NOT SPECULATE about Climate Sensitivities factors that have been REDUCED for decades now and are STILL pretty much primitive guesses. Even Arrhenius had to guess to LEAP from a "power level" of watts/m2 to Degrees.

It's how I approach most any tool I use in science.

Yes, we should always use 19th C etc calculations instead of more accurate modern ones for things like Planetary distance, Geologic age (without Isotopic dating), etc, etc.

That's typical flat earth BS from you to justify your now admittedly backwards ideas.
`

Yes, we should always use 19th C etc calculations instead of more accurate modern ones

And why use the actual historic temperature data when you can make it more accurate by "adjusting" it?

Precisely.
Because from time to time on any long term msrt, adjustment for accuracy becomes necessary. To jibe New gauges with old, different or increased placement of old ones, etc

And YET at many of the CURRENT surface reporting stations, those measurements are taken on asphalt, within range of huge HVAC equipment or vehicles. Or even in between taxiways and run-up areas at airports.

So there's NO rush to adjust any of it. It's been documented FAULTY for decades.

 

[edthecynic]

Good plan.. I approve. So you should stick to basics. Like the ORIGINAL calculations of chemistry, physics and geometry that calculate the RAW warming power at the surface of a trace gas like CO2 --- just like your ancient pals Arrhenius and others did and NOT SPECULATE about Climate Sensitivities factors that have been REDUCED for decades now and are STILL pretty much primitive guesses. Even Arrhenius had to guess to LEAP from a "power level" of watts/m2 to Degrees.

It's how I approach most any tool I use in science.

Yes, we should always use 19th C etc calculations instead of more accurate modern ones for things like Planetary distance, Geologic age (without Isotopic dating), etc, etc.

That's typical flat earth BS from you to justify your now admittedly backwards ideas.
`

Yes, we should always use 19th C etc calculations instead of more accurate modern ones

And why use the actual historic temperature data when you can make it more accurate by "adjusting" it?

Precisely.
Because from time to time on any long term msrt, adjustment for accuracy becomes necessary. To jibe New gauges with old, different or increased placement of old ones, etc

And YET at many of the CURRENT surface reporting stations, those measurements are taken on asphalt, within range of huge HVAC equipment or vehicles. Or even in between taxiways and run-up areas at airports.

So there's NO rush to adjust any of it. It's been documented FAULTY for decades.

And there it is, the deniers bitch about poorly sited stations, and when these stations are removed from the data record they bitch about making an adjustment to the data. A win, win for worthless lying scum deniers.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Good plan.. I approve. So you should stick to basics. Like the ORIGINAL calculations of chemistry, physics and geometry that calculate the RAW warming power at the surface of a trace gas like CO2 --- just like your ancient pals Arrhenius and others did and NOT SPECULATE about Climate Sensitivities factors that have been REDUCED for decades now and are STILL pretty much primitive guesses. Even Arrhenius had to guess to LEAP from a "power level" of watts/m2 to Degrees.

It's how I approach most any tool I use in science.

Yes, we should always use 19th C etc calculations instead of more accurate modern ones for things like Planetary distance, Geologic age (without Isotopic dating), etc, etc.

That's typical flat earth BS from you to justify your now admittedly backwards ideas.
`

Yes, we should always use 19th C etc calculations instead of more accurate modern ones

And why use the actual historic temperature data when you can make it more accurate by "adjusting" it?

Precisely.
Because from time to time on any long term msrt, adjustment for accuracy becomes necessary. To jibe New gauges with old, different or increased placement of old ones, etc

And YET at many of the CURRENT surface reporting stations, those measurements are taken on asphalt, within range of huge HVAC equipment or vehicles. Or even in between taxiways and run-up areas at airports.

So there's NO rush to adjust any of it. It's been documented FAULTY for decades.

And there it is, the deniers bitch about poorly sited stations, and when these stations are removed from the data record they bitch about making an adjustment to the data. A win, win for worthless lying scum deniers.

If you remove a poorly sited station, do you have to adjust data from the 1930s?

 

[Dale Smith]

Let's debate this topic and let the masses decide which of us makes the better argument. I am calling "BULLSHIT" that the every day Johnny Lunchpail is responsible for the weather anomalies because they drive a car to and from work in order to eek out an existence on this shitty prison planet. I will also go as far as to prove that petroleum isn't a fossil fuel but is a abiotic fluid that is second only to water in quantity and artificial scarcities have been used to suck the the fiat currency scrip notes from those that need it. I will also provide proof that fuel efficient carburetor technology where ALL of the fuel is utilized with no emissions has been suppressed.

I will also provide quotes from the Iron Mountain Report and the Club of Rome as it pertains to their "sustainable development" agenda where the Hegelian Dialectic is put into play....hey, it's in their own words.

Step up, put up or STFU.....it's really that simple.

You "call bullshit" on NASA/NOAA in between posting your Chemtrails Pix BS as the post above? (and 2 others already deleted)
You're kidding Right Mel!
Now stop hogging the machine and give the other Patients a chance.
Get the **** outa the real sections wack job.
bye.
`

Not kidding in the slightest and you will avoid an honest debate and exchange of ideas about "climate change" and the U.N's "sustainable development" plan put forth at the Rio conference in 1992. I know more than you......infinitely more...no brag, simply fact.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The ENSO is about to go cold again... Cooling of regions 1, 2, and 3 has begun..

This will not make the alarmists happy.....

 

[flacaltenn]

Yes, we should always use 19th C etc calculations instead of more accurate modern ones for things like Planetary distance, Geologic age (without Isotopic dating), etc, etc.

That's typical flat earth BS from you to justify your now admittedly backwards ideas.
`

Yes, we should always use 19th C etc calculations instead of more accurate modern ones

And why use the actual historic temperature data when you can make it more accurate by "adjusting" it?

Precisely.
Because from time to time on any long term msrt, adjustment for accuracy becomes necessary. To jibe New gauges with old, different or increased placement of old ones, etc

And YET at many of the CURRENT surface reporting stations, those measurements are taken on asphalt, within range of huge HVAC equipment or vehicles. Or even in between taxiways and run-up areas at airports.

So there's NO rush to adjust any of it. It's been documented FAULTY for decades.

And there it is, the deniers bitch about poorly sited stations, and when these stations are removed from the data record they bitch about making an adjustment to the data. A win, win for worthless lying scum deniers.

If you remove a poorly sited station, do you have to adjust data from the 1930s?

Actually some of those corrections to the 30's are BECAUSE the siting has been changed. Or that's the excuse. I can't imagine if they are cooling the 30s HOW they find stations that were TOO HOT. Heck -- Air conditioning and central heating wasn't even a thing then. Neither were big airports and big asphalt.

It's a real "highly processed" product that they are cooking everyday at GISS and NOAA.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Salvatore Del Prete

In the last couple of weeks overall oceanic sea surface temperatures are down, Antarctica is having wicked cold, as well as South Africa. In the meantime the Arctic N. of 80 degrees latitude has below normal summer temperatures and to top it off year 2018 is running colder then year 2017 with the month of July to make that difference even more apparent.

As I have said for many months this is the transitional year. Say goodbye to the fake AGW.

Low solar moderated by a weakening geo magnetic field should result in overall sea surface temperatures to keep trending down, while the albedo should increase slightly.

The good Doctor is right on the money...

 

[abu afak]

Salvatore Del Prete.....
.........
The good Doctor is right on the money...

Yup, "Right on the Money"
The Temp is setting records, NOT Dropping/not dropped .7c by decade end. only 17 months to go and this is THE WORST Climate prediction I've ever seen considering it was only a 6-7 year one.

Too Stupid for WUWT! | HotWhopper

Salvatore Del Prete says (excerpt):

July 15, 2013 at 4:35 pm expect a -.7 c drop for global temp. by decade end,
if solar conditions are as quiet as I think they will be. Higher in the N.H High Latitudes, less in the S.H
​

This is what Salvatore is predicting:


​

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOPPPPPSSS.
`

 

[flacaltenn]

Salvatore Del Prete

In the last couple of weeks overall oceanic sea surface temperatures are down, Antarctica is having wicked cold, as well as South Africa. In the meantime the Arctic N. of 80 degrees latitude has below normal summer temperatures and to top it off year 2018 is running colder then year 2017 with the month of July to make that difference even more apparent.

As I have said for many months this is the transitional year. Say goodbye to the fake AGW.

Low solar moderated by a weakening geo magnetic field should result in overall sea surface temperatures to keep trending down, while the albedo should increase slightly.

The good Doctor is right on the money...

1st off your hero should only the Satellite charts. The GISS/NOAA crap is just simply unbelievable anymore. But more than that -- NOTHING about thermodynamics on this planet changes that fast from that small a forcing. Go LOOK at the Maunder Minimum and how long it took to reach a 0.5DegC bottom.

 

[skookerasbil]

Nobody cares about a 0.5 degree drop or rise.

C'mon now...where is there any evidence that people are caring. Maybe some scientists are but they aren't even a blip in terms of numbers! Academia? Also a blip. Hollywood? A blip and nobody takes them seriously. Progressives....a little more than a blip but miles from a true voting block.

Nobody is interested s0ns....discussions of any "increase" in temperature is an exercise no more important than a group navel contemplation session in the bigger picture. It's a hobby for folks who need to be miserable about something, thus rants in the nether-regions of the internet. People out in the real world have places to go and people to see. The scientists have been screaming and lobbing bombs for over two decades....the people consistently hit the snooze button. C'mon now....

When the Arctic becomes a vacation destination for travel agencies, then maybe people will pay attention....how do you miss the memo that watching paint dry is ghey.

 

[edthecynic]

Yes, we should always use 19th C etc calculations instead of more accurate modern ones for things like Planetary distance, Geologic age (without Isotopic dating), etc, etc.

That's typical flat earth BS from you to justify your now admittedly backwards ideas.
`

Yes, we should always use 19th C etc calculations instead of more accurate modern ones

And why use the actual historic temperature data when you can make it more accurate by "adjusting" it?

Precisely.
Because from time to time on any long term msrt, adjustment for accuracy becomes necessary. To jibe New gauges with old, different or increased placement of old ones, etc

And YET at many of the CURRENT surface reporting stations, those measurements are taken on asphalt, within range of huge HVAC equipment or vehicles. Or even in between taxiways and run-up areas at airports.

So there's NO rush to adjust any of it. It's been documented FAULTY for decades.

And there it is, the deniers bitch about poorly sited stations, and when these stations are removed from the data record they bitch about making an adjustment to the data. A win, win for worthless lying scum deniers.

If you remove a poorly sited station, do you have to adjust data from the 1930s?

If the station was poorly sited in the 30s, then yes.

 

[edthecynic]

Yes, we should always use 19th C etc calculations instead of more accurate modern ones

And why use the actual historic temperature data when you can make it more accurate by "adjusting" it?

Precisely.
Because from time to time on any long term msrt, adjustment for accuracy becomes necessary. To jibe New gauges with old, different or increased placement of old ones, etc

And YET at many of the CURRENT surface reporting stations, those measurements are taken on asphalt, within range of huge HVAC equipment or vehicles. Or even in between taxiways and run-up areas at airports.

So there's NO rush to adjust any of it. It's been documented FAULTY for decades.

And there it is, the deniers bitch about poorly sited stations, and when these stations are removed from the data record they bitch about making an adjustment to the data. A win, win for worthless lying scum deniers.

If you remove a poorly sited station, do you have to adjust data from the 1930s?

Actually some of those corrections to the 30's are BECAUSE the siting has been changed. Or that's the excuse. I can't imagine if they are cooling the 30s HOW they find stations that were TOO HOT. Heck -- Air conditioning and central heating wasn't even a thing then. Neither were big airports and big asphalt.

It's a real "highly processed" product that they are cooking everyday at GISS and NOAA.

Again the only data PROVEN to be cooked was the satellite data of Spencer and Christy at UAH. When it was "uncooked" it matched the ground station data almost exactly.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Salvatore Del Prete

In the last couple of weeks overall oceanic sea surface temperatures are down, Antarctica is having wicked cold, as well as South Africa. In the meantime the Arctic N. of 80 degrees latitude has below normal summer temperatures and to top it off year 2018 is running colder then year 2017 with the month of July to make that difference even more apparent.

As I have said for many months this is the transitional year. Say goodbye to the fake AGW.

Low solar moderated by a weakening geo magnetic field should result in overall sea surface temperatures to keep trending down, while the albedo should increase slightly.

The good Doctor is right on the money...

1st off your hero should only the Satellite charts. The GISS/NOAA crap is just simply unbelievable anymore. But more than that -- NOTHING about thermodynamics on this planet changes that fast from that small a forcing. Go LOOK at the Maunder Minimum and how long it took to reach a 0.5DegC bottom.

The trend in unaltered data sets began 22 years ago. So, yes I agree that it is a slow moving sloth. Dr Prete was simply pointing out the empirically observed evidence is becoming undeniable to the point where no further adjustment of it is possible and you still appear credible.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Precisely.
Because from time to time on any long term msrt, adjustment for accuracy becomes necessary. To jibe New gauges with old, different or increased placement of old ones, etc

And YET at many of the CURRENT surface reporting stations, those measurements are taken on asphalt, within range of huge HVAC equipment or vehicles. Or even in between taxiways and run-up areas at airports.

So there's NO rush to adjust any of it. It's been documented FAULTY for decades.

And there it is, the deniers bitch about poorly sited stations, and when these stations are removed from the data record they bitch about making an adjustment to the data. A win, win for worthless lying scum deniers.

If you remove a poorly sited station, do you have to adjust data from the 1930s?

Actually some of those corrections to the 30's are BECAUSE the siting has been changed. Or that's the excuse. I can't imagine if they are cooling the 30s HOW they find stations that were TOO HOT. Heck -- Air conditioning and central heating wasn't even a thing then. Neither were big airports and big asphalt.

It's a real "highly processed" product that they are cooking everyday at GISS and NOAA.

Again the only data PROVEN to be cooked was the satellite data of Spencer and Christy at UAH. When it was "uncooked" it matched the ground station data almost exactly.

Radiosonds say you have it 180 out... They are in perfect agreement with the satellites. it is your buds twisting and chewing up the USHCN AND HGCN SITES THAT ARE IDIOTS!..

But I'm sure you wont let empirical evidence dissuade you from your fantasy...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Salvatore Del Prete.....
.........
The good Doctor is right on the money...

Yup, "Right on the Money"
The Temp is setting records, NOT Dropping/not dropped .7c by decade end. only 17 months to go and this is THE WORST Climate prediction I've ever seen considering it was only a 6-7 year one.

Too Stupid for WUWT! | HotWhopper

Salvatore Del Prete says (excerpt):

July 15, 2013 at 4:35 pm expect a -.7 c drop for global temp. by decade end,
if solar conditions are as quiet as I think they will be. Higher in the N.H High Latitudes, less in the S.H
​

This is what Salvatore is predicting:

​

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOPPPPPSSS.
`

The only OOOOPS I see is the one where you fools keep adjusting temps up to try and keep your lie alive... LOL... HOTWHOPPER..... Slandering Sou's web site known for flat out lies and fabrications unsupported by empirical evidence... You should choose more wisely!

 

[edthecynic]

And YET at many of the CURRENT surface reporting stations, those measurements are taken on asphalt, within range of huge HVAC equipment or vehicles. Or even in between taxiways and run-up areas at airports.

So there's NO rush to adjust any of it. It's been documented FAULTY for decades.

And there it is, the deniers bitch about poorly sited stations, and when these stations are removed from the data record they bitch about making an adjustment to the data. A win, win for worthless lying scum deniers.

If you remove a poorly sited station, do you have to adjust data from the 1930s?

Actually some of those corrections to the 30's are BECAUSE the siting has been changed. Or that's the excuse. I can't imagine if they are cooling the 30s HOW they find stations that were TOO HOT. Heck -- Air conditioning and central heating wasn't even a thing then. Neither were big airports and big asphalt.

It's a real "highly processed" product that they are cooking everyday at GISS and NOAA.

Again the only data PROVEN to be cooked was the satellite data of Spencer and Christy at UAH. When it was "uncooked" it matched the ground station data almost exactly.

Radiosonds say you have it 180 out... They are in perfect agreement with the satellites. it is your buds twisting and chewing up the USHCN AND HGCN SITES THAT ARE IDIOTS!..

But I'm sure you wont let empirical evidence dissuade you from your fantasy...

You have no empirical evidence, you simply refuse to accept the empirical evidence when it contradicts your built in bias.