Second hottest August in recorded history based on Copernicus data

[Fort Fun Indiana]

One of the first things the professor in the statistics class stated is that no model can duplicate nature, but they can be close enough to be useful. Now considering the predictions of the deniers, and the predictions of the professional scientists, one can see that the scientists have been far more accurate than the deniers. The scientists predicted that as the atmosphere and the oceans warmed, we would see far more extreme precipitation events. Harvey was just one example of that that we are seeing today.

So that's why you keep changing the data - to make it more accurately reflect the model.

^ 2 decades, no warming

View attachment 148121

Really? Someone doesn't know how to read a graph. lol 98+% of the months are above anything we had before 1998 and exluding 1998 you'll find at least 85% of months between 1999 and 2015 below last month.

Not warming? Give me a break.

1998 was the peak, its been downhill from there. 2 decades of failed AGW.

You were saying?

Completely false. The few meters of atmosphere above the surface represents only a tiny portion of the climate. As scientists now know, global warming not only did not pause, it sped up a little. If you are going to enter into debate on this topic, you really should stay abreast of the developments coming out of it.

 

[mamooth]

And you're the asshat that laughs at Dr. Feynman, a scientist renowned for making the sort of idiots who's asses you kiss, look like the fools they are.

Feynman backs our science, and trashes your cult pseudoscience.

Feynman said if the data contradicts your theory, your theory is wrong.

The data contradicts all denier theories, hence all denier theories are wrong, according to Feynman.

The data agrees with our theories, hence our theories pass the Feynman test.

That's why deniers have to fabricate your Lysenkoist-type political propaganda about how all the real data has really been faked. If all the data didn't flatly contradict deniers, they wouldn't have to do that.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

One of the first things the professor in the statistics class stated is that no model can duplicate nature, but they can be close enough to be useful. Now considering the predictions of the deniers, and the predictions of the professional scientists, one can see that the scientists have been far more accurate than the deniers. The scientists predicted that as the atmosphere and the oceans warmed, we would see far more extreme precipitation events. Harvey was just one example of that that we are seeing today.

So that's why you keep changing the data - to make it more accurately reflect the model.

^ 2 decades, no warming

View attachment 148121

Really? Someone doesn't know how to read a graph. lol 98+% of the months are above anything we had before 1998 and exluding 1998 you'll find at least 85% of months between 1999 and 2015 below last month.

Not warming? Give me a break.

1998 was the peak, its been downhill from there. 2 decades of failed AGW.

You were saying?

Completely false. The few meters of atmosphere above the surface represents only a tiny portion of the climate. As scientists now know, global warming not only did not pause, it sped up a little. If you are going to enter into debate on this topic, you really should stay abreast of the developments coming out of it.

Bernie Madoff is kicking himself that he didn't hire a Climate "Scientist" to manage his books; he'd still be raising money. "It only looks like your money is gone, once we add in the data set of the money trapped in the deep ocean, you're up 10% this year -- again!"

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And you're the asshat that laughs at Dr. Feynman, a scientist renowned for making the sort of idiots who's asses you kiss, look like the fools they are.

Feynman backs our science, and trashes your cult pseudoscience.

Feynman said if the data contradicts your theory, your theory is wrong.

The data contradicts all denier theories, hence all denier theories are wrong, according to Feynman.

The data agrees with our theories, hence our theories pass the Feynman test.

That's why deniers have to fabricate your Lysenkoist-type political propaganda about how all the real data has really been faked. If all the data didn't flatly contradict deniers, they wouldn't have to do that.

You don't do "science" old woman; you do "Consensus"

 

[CrusaderFrank]

One of the first things the professor in the statistics class stated is that no model can duplicate nature, but they can be close enough to be useful. Now considering the predictions of the deniers, and the predictions of the professional scientists, one can see that the scientists have been far more accurate than the deniers. The scientists predicted that as the atmosphere and the oceans warmed, we would see far more extreme precipitation events. Harvey was just one example of that that we are seeing today.

So that's why you keep changing the data - to make it more accurately reflect the model.

^ 2 decades, no warming

View attachment 148121

Really? Someone doesn't know how to read a graph. lol 98+% of the months are above anything we had before 1998 and exluding 1998 you'll find at least 85% of months between 1999 and 2015 below last month.

Not warming? Give me a break.

You mean the chart that shows temperatures peaking in 1998?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And you're the asshat that laughs at Dr. Feynman, a scientist renowned for making the sort of idiots who's asses you kiss, look like the fools they are.

Feynman backs our science, and trashes your cult pseudoscience.

Feynman said if the data contradicts your theory, your theory is wrong.

The data contradicts all denier theories, hence all denier theories are wrong, according to Feynman.

The data agrees with our theories, hence our theories pass the Feynman test.

That's why deniers have to fabricate your Lysenkoist-type political propaganda about how all the real data has really been faked. If all the data didn't flatly contradict deniers, they wouldn't have to do that.

Feynman said if the data contradicts your theory, your theory is wrong.

Is that why "Hiding the decline" and "Mike's Nature trick" are a thing?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

One of the first things the professor in the statistics class stated is that no model can duplicate nature, but they can be close enough to be useful. Now considering the predictions of the deniers, and the predictions of the professional scientists, one can see that the scientists have been far more accurate than the deniers. The scientists predicted that as the atmosphere and the oceans warmed, we would see far more extreme precipitation events. Harvey was just one example of that that we are seeing today.

So that's why you keep changing the data - to make it more accurately reflect the model.

^ 2 decades, no warming

View attachment 148121

Really? Someone doesn't know how to read a graph. lol 98+% of the months are above anything we had before 1998 and exluding 1998 you'll find at least 85% of months between 1999 and 2015 below last month.

Not warming? Give me a break.

1998 was the peak, its been downhill from there. 2 decades of failed AGW.

You were saying?

Completely false. The few meters of atmosphere above the surface represents only a tiny portion of the climate. As scientists now know, global warming not only did not pause, it sped up a little. If you are going to enter into debate on this topic, you really should stay abreast of the developments coming out of it.

Bernie Madoff is kicking himself that he didn't hire a Climate "Scientist" to manage his books; he'd still be raising money. "It only looks like your money is gone, once we add in the data set of the money trapped in the deep ocean, you're up 10% this year -- again!"

 

[mamooth]

Is that why "Hiding the decline" and "Mike's Nature trick" are a thing?

They're only "a thing" to denier liars. Everyone else read the context, and therefore knows deniers are lying about those statements.

That's what the data says. It's another example of how the since the data contradicts denier theories, denier theories must be wrong.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Is that why "Hiding the decline" and "Mike's Nature trick" are a thing?

They're only "a thing" to denier liars. Everyone else read the context, and therefore knows deniers are lying about those statements.

That's what the data says. It's another example of how the since the data contradicts denier theories, denier theories must be wrong.

Everyone else read the context,

Hiding the decline didn't hide anything? What did it actually do?
Why the incongruous name?

since the data contradicts denier theories

Is that why you guys keep adjusting historical data, because the data denies OUR theories?

 

[Pop23]

Please supply the location of every weather monitoring station on earth for the past 300 years and the names and credentials of the individuals that calibrated each.

If you wish to use satellite data, the name of those for the last 300 years would be helpful as well.

Thanks in advance.

 

[westwall]

Riiiiiiight... all of these educated people dedicating their lives to this field are all liars or incompetent, and a guy like you who knows less than nothing about the topic has managed to figure them all out.

Here are your "Educated people" This is not a fucking joke or a photoshop, these are climate "Scientists"

Where are the other 100s of 1000s of climate scientists? And why are you showing me a picture of a prop, instead of speaking to published science? What so you think i am.... 5 years old? Embarrassing...

You are speaking to Frankie boi who is convinced that the moon is hollow and hiding the reptilians. LOL

And you're the asshat that laughs at Dr. Feynman, a scientist renowned for making the sort of idiots who's asses you kiss, look like the fools they are.

Here he is showing the NASA scientists to have been locked in their little world and ignoring all other possibilities. EXACTLY like climatologists today who ignore all other climate evidence in favor of their failed theories. Feynman would have crucified them.

Dr. Feynman: "I know little about climate science."

His error was not to stop right there.

But, because he was a genius, he would have figured it all out really quick, and come to the conclusion that it is a fraud as Dyson, another genius, has already done. Funny how it's the geniuses who figure it out real quick.

 

[OldLady]

It's been 15 degrees cooler here for weeks. Wednesday we are supposed to have record lows. What makes people who have no vested interest in a thing post about it over and over and over and over and over and over?

so because you had cool local temperatures for a week, or a month, or a year... you think you have no vested interest in combating global warming?

Really? So, in your corner of the world, time has stopped, everything you use and eat is made and grown in your backyard, and you use a special currency unconnected to the dollar or any other foreign currency and which is a mystery to everyone.

Fascinating!

Can someone give me the exact location of each and every weather monitoring station in the world for the past 200 years

And the names of the individuals in charge of their calibration?

Thanks in advance.

Why? What would that prove to you?

 

[Pop23]

It's been 15 degrees cooler here for weeks. Wednesday we are supposed to have record lows. What makes people who have no vested interest in a thing post about it over and over and over and over and over and over?

so because you had cool local temperatures for a week, or a month, or a year... you think you have no vested interest in combating global warming?

Really? So, in your corner of the world, time has stopped, everything you use and eat is made and grown in your backyard, and you use a special currency unconnected to the dollar or any other foreign currency and which is a mystery to everyone.

Fascinating!

Can someone give me the exact location of each and every weather monitoring station in the world for the past 200 years

And the names of the individuals in charge of their calibration?

Thanks in advance.

Why? What would that prove to you?

If you don't know, why are you participating in a conversation that is based on the difference in temperatures over time?

 

[westwall]

It's been 15 degrees cooler here for weeks. Wednesday we are supposed to have record lows. What makes people who have no vested interest in a thing post about it over and over and over and over and over and over?

so because you had cool local temperatures for a week, or a month, or a year... you think you have no vested interest in combating global warming?

Really? So, in your corner of the world, time has stopped, everything you use and eat is made and grown in your backyard, and you use a special currency unconnected to the dollar or any other foreign currency and which is a mystery to everyone.

Fascinating!

Can someone give me the exact location of each and every weather monitoring station in the world for the past 200 years

And the names of the individuals in charge of their calibration?

Thanks in advance.

Why? What would that prove to you?

He's pointing out that the overwhelming majority of the weather stations that are used for temp data are sited in areas that they shouldn't be. There are over 5,000 weather stations that are no longer being used because they record cooling, as opposed to the remaining 1500 that show warming. The problem is that the 1500 that show warming are all sited in urban areas (where they are not supposed to be) thus what they are recording is the Urban Heat Island Effect. A well known phenomena that the climatologists have been trying like hell to ignore forever.

Here in Reno, the temp will drop 6 degrees the second you hit the five mile mark. By the time you get the Washoe Valley it has dropped eight degrees. It will do this like clockwork. Every climatologist will scream "anecdotal!" in an effort to discredit the observation, but the effect is factual. The new site for the Reno weather station is right between the two runways at Reno Tahoe Intl. Airport. Probably the hottest place in the Truckee Meadows.

 

[OldLady]

It's been 15 degrees cooler here for weeks. Wednesday we are supposed to have record lows. What makes people who have no vested interest in a thing post about it over and over and over and over and over and over?

so because you had cool local temperatures for a week, or a month, or a year... you think you have no vested interest in combating global warming?

Really? So, in your corner of the world, time has stopped, everything you use and eat is made and grown in your backyard, and you use a special currency unconnected to the dollar or any other foreign currency and which is a mystery to everyone.

Fascinating!

Can someone give me the exact location of each and every weather monitoring station in the world for the past 200 years

And the names of the individuals in charge of their calibration?

Thanks in advance.

Why? What would that prove to you?

If you don't know, why are you participating in a conversation that is based on the difference in temperatures over time?

I asked first. So answer me.

 

[Pop23]

It's been 15 degrees cooler here for weeks. Wednesday we are supposed to have record lows. What makes people who have no vested interest in a thing post about it over and over and over and over and over and over?

so because you had cool local temperatures for a week, or a month, or a year... you think you have no vested interest in combating global warming?

Really? So, in your corner of the world, time has stopped, everything you use and eat is made and grown in your backyard, and you use a special currency unconnected to the dollar or any other foreign currency and which is a mystery to everyone.

Fascinating!

Can someone give me the exact location of each and every weather monitoring station in the world for the past 200 years

And the names of the individuals in charge of their calibration?

Thanks in advance.

Why? What would that prove to you?

If you don't know, why are you participating in a conversation that is based on the difference in temperatures over time?

I asked first. So answer me.

To state a theory as this is, you must establish a baseline then show a difference using apples to apples data. Without a baseline and the data throughout time, from the same locations, Makes the data suspect

Here's a troubling fact:

Weather Stations Disappearing Worldwide

Note, the majority of the missing data points are in cooler climates. If true, of course the remaining points would show an overall warmer result.

It also shows that some of the stations are less sophisticated than others? Wow, just wow

As someone who works with statistics, all I can say is..................

Geez!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Is that why "Hiding the decline" and "Mike's Nature trick" are a thing?

They're only "a thing" to denier liars. Everyone else read the context, and therefore knows deniers are lying about those statements.

That's what the data says. It's another example of how the since the data contradicts denier theories, denier theories must be wrong.

Context + consensus = LOL

 

[ScienceRocks]

Please supply the location of every weather monitoring station on earth for the past 300 years and the names and credentials of the individuals that calibrated each.

If you wish to use satellite data, the name of those for the last 300 years would be helpful as well.

Thanks in advance.

Idiot, please supply a single damn database or theory in a major paper. You can't as you are a bullshitter.

 

[Pop23]

Please supply the location of every weather monitoring station on earth for the past 300 years and the names and credentials of the individuals that calibrated each.

If you wish to use satellite data, the name of those for the last 300 years would be helpful as well.

Thanks in advance.

Idiot, please supply a single damn database or theory in a major paper. You can't as you are a bullshitter.

Don't ask a question until you answer the question. If you can't, you are a bullshitter.

 

[Pop23]

Please supply the location of every weather monitoring station on earth for the past 300 years and the names and credentials of the individuals that calibrated each.

If you wish to use satellite data, the name of those for the last 300 years would be helpful as well.

Thanks in advance.

Idiot, please supply a single damn database or theory in a major paper. You can't as you are a bullshitter.

Don't ask a question until you answer the question. If you can't, you are a bullshitter.

I deal in numbers. Hard to bullshit data.

I am one of the few that called the election for trump three weeks in advance. I posted my method used on this board.

I could give a crap about the emotions involved. Just the data