Warmest 12 month period based on the giss...Heading for the hottest year in recorded history

[ScienceRocks]

Matthew doesnt discuss climate science. he just puts up 'warmest evah' press releases.

what ever happened to Chris? that was his favourite hobby too.

And all you do is tell people how the entire climate science community is lying. Pretty hard to believe as everything seems to support at least some warming these past 40 years.

 

[excalibur]

GISS is doctored.

Heck, they admit they don't have data for large areas of the world, but they then infill those anyway. Shockingly always a warming trend.

RSS data shows different.

 

[Old Rocks]

Fig. 1. Global (80S to 80N) Mean TLT Anomaly plotted as a function of time. The thick black line is the observed time series from RSS V3.3 MSU/AMSU Temperatures. The yellow band is the 5% to 95% range of output from CMIP-5 climate simulations. The mean value of each time series average from 1979-1984 is set to zero so the changes over time can be more easily seen. Note that after 1998, the observations are likely to be below the simulated values, indicating that the simulation as a whole are predicting too much warming.

Climate Analysis Remote Sensing Systems

Yet the warmest years on record are in that period from 1998 to present.

 

[IanC]

Matthew doesnt discuss climate science. he just puts up 'warmest evah' press releases.

what ever happened to Chris? that was his favourite hobby too.

And all you do is tell people how the entire climate science community is lying. Pretty hard to believe as everything seems to support at least some warming these past 40 years.

lying? I dont remember saying that exactly but I have certainly said that their methodology is close to fraud. it is certainly misdirection. the term 'global average temperature' certainly doesnt mean the average of global temperatures any more. it means the average of temperatures that are adjusted to match expectations, and other temperatures that we have discarded and replaced with ones more conducive to the idea of global warming. do you really need more examples of this?

and BTW. when have I ever said there has been no warming in general over the last 150, 100, or 40 years?

 

[Crick]

I dont remember saying that exactly but I have certainly said that their methodology is close to fraud. it is certainly misdirection. the term 'global average temperature' certainly doesnt mean the average of global temperatures any more. it means the average of temperatures that are adjusted to match expectations, and other temperatures that we have discarded and replaced with ones more conducive to the idea of global warming. do you really need more examples of this?

and BTW. when have I ever said there has been no warming in general over the last 150, 100, or 40 years?

So it's a giant global conspiracy. Got it.

 

[IanC]

if I give you a list of a few dozen stations that no longer report temperatures but are still actively used to derive local, regional and global temperatures, via 'estimates', am I still wrong?

we have gone over individual and regional stations that have been distorted out of recognition by 'adjustments'.

I have shown you how magical averaging by ACORN in Australia turns no warming trend into 1C/ century warming.

perhaps Madoff was not the right example to use. a better one is the financial instruments that bundled worthless mortgages into packages that were then guaranteed by the govt. it caused the near collapse of the world economy because no one was willing to expose the irregularities while everyone was still making money.

 

[Crick]

If you want to contend that in all the thousands of weather stations out there and in all the process necessary to use that data, that human mistakes are made, I will not disagree.

But if you want to contend that global temperature data is being manipulated in an attempt to make global warming seem worse than it actually is, you need a giant global conspiracy. And that's nonsense.

 

[IanC]

If you want to contend that in all the thousands of weather stations out there and in all the process necessary to use that data, that human mistakes are made, I will not disagree.

But if you want to contend that global temperature data is being manipulated in an attempt to make global warming seem worse than it actually is, you need a giant global conspiracy. And that's nonsense.

no, you dont. after AR4 McIntyre found extra tree ring data 'on the internet' that Briffa had been reluctant to disclose. McIntyre showed what the series should look like if Briffa had used the information that he actually held. the RealClimate gang scoffed and insulted and claimed that it was ridiculous. a few years later Briffa(2012) came out and it was almost exactly what McIntyre said it should look like. were the RealClimate gang lying and cheating, or just whistling in the dark to save face? Matthews was told his arctic reconstruction for PAGES2K had serious errors including proxies that were used upsidedown. when he corrected some of the errors, including one upsidedown proxy the new reconstruction had MWP temps as warm as today. was he lying and cheating before? or just trying to save face? ps. why didnt he also correct the other upsidedown proxy at the same time? he waited a few months and then added a corrigendum to the journal but didnt have to publically remake the reconstruction graph that would have shown the MWP as warmer than today. lying and cheating or just saving face?

 

[mamooth]

That paragraph probably made sense to a CultofMcIntyre devotee. Just not to anyone else.

 

[SSDD]

If you want to contend that in all the thousands of weather stations out there and in all the process necessary to use that data, that human mistakes are made, I will not disagree.

But if you want to contend that global temperature data is being manipulated in an attempt to make global warming seem worse than it actually is, you need a giant global conspiracy. And that's nonsense.

So explain why CERN, the most advanced, meticulously placed data gathering network on earth shows a cooling trend for the US, but the data that still requires adjustment shows a warming trend for the same area?

 

[SSDD]

That paragraph probably made sense to a CultofMcIntyre devotee. Just not to anyone else.

It is adult conversation mammoth...no one expects you to understand. Bitter old women desperately seeking attention jump in and say stupid stuff like that...just begging...so here is some attention for you. Don't bother to thank me.

 

[Crick]

If you want to contend that in all the thousands of weather stations out there and in all the process necessary to use that data, that human mistakes are made, I will not disagree.

But if you want to contend that global temperature data is being manipulated in an attempt to make global warming seem worse than it actually is, you need a giant global conspiracy. And that's nonsense.

no, you dont. after AR4 McIntyre found extra tree ring data 'on the internet' that Briffa had been reluctant to disclose. McIntyre showed what the series should look like if Briffa had used the information that he actually held. the RealClimate gang scoffed and insulted and claimed that it was ridiculous. a few years later Briffa(2012) came out and it was almost exactly what McIntyre said it should look like. were the RealClimate gang lying and cheating, or just whistling in the dark to save face? Matthews was told his arctic reconstruction for PAGES2K had serious errors including proxies that were used upsidedown. when he corrected some of the errors, including one upsidedown proxy the new reconstruction had MWP temps as warm as today. was he lying and cheating before? or just trying to save face? ps. why didnt he also correct the other upsidedown proxy at the same time? he waited a few months and then added a corrigendum to the journal but didnt have to publically remake the reconstruction graph that would have shown the MWP as warmer than today. lying and cheating or just saving face?

And has McIntyre - whose knows absolutely nothing about dendrochronology or atmospheric science or any branch of physics and who is by no measure an outstanding statistician - has he proven that the world is not getting warmer or that if it is, that human GHG emissions and deforestation are the primary cause?

Has he?

 

[IanC]

If you want to contend that in all the thousands of weather stations out there and in all the process necessary to use that data, that human mistakes are made, I will not disagree.

But if you want to contend that global temperature data is being manipulated in an attempt to make global warming seem worse than it actually is, you need a giant global conspiracy. And that's nonsense.

no, you dont. after AR4 McIntyre found extra tree ring data 'on the internet' that Briffa had been reluctant to disclose. McIntyre showed what the series should look like if Briffa had used the information that he actually held. the RealClimate gang scoffed and insulted and claimed that it was ridiculous. a few years later Briffa(2012) came out and it was almost exactly what McIntyre said it should look like. were the RealClimate gang lying and cheating, or just whistling in the dark to save face? Matthews was told his arctic reconstruction for PAGES2K had serious errors including proxies that were used upsidedown. when he corrected some of the errors, including one upsidedown proxy the new reconstruction had MWP temps as warm as today. was he lying and cheating before? or just trying to save face? ps. why didnt he also correct the other upsidedown proxy at the same time? he waited a few months and then added a corrigendum to the journal but didnt have to publically remake the reconstruction graph that would have shown the MWP as warmer than today. lying and cheating or just saving face?

And has McIntyre - whose knows absolutely nothing about dendrochronology or atmospheric science or any branch of physics and who is by no measure an outstanding statistician - has he proven that the world is not getting warmer or that if it is, that human GHG emissions and deforestation are the primary cause?

Has he?

Ask Briffa, Steig, Matthews, Gergis, or Marcott if McIntyre knows anything about the statistics of paleoreconstructions. He has obviously schooled them all.

I would have added Mann to the list but he seems to be incapable of fixing any of his mistakes. Mann still uses upsidedown Tiljander cores!

And since you don't read McIntyre, what do know about his position on CO2 theory, etc? Is this yet another of your strawmen where you imagine something, and assume it to be true?

 

[Crick]

I know the man's education and work history. He is NOT a climatologist in any way, shape or form. He is a second rate statistician with very little work experience in his own field. But, if he's all you've got, he's all you've got.

 

[IanC]

I know the man's education and work history. He is NOT a climatologist in any way, shape or form. He is a second rate statistician with very little work experience in his own field. But, if he's all you've got, he's all you've got.

You have read his education background? Top grades in mathematics at strong schools and prestigious scholarships? Cut short to actually go to work. Some of us were born with a plastic spoon in our mouths but that doesn't make us incapable. Climate science is not known for having the sharpest knives in the drawer, it is easy to see why talented amateurs can come in and find so many mistakes.

 

[Crick]

I know the man's education and work history. He is NOT a climatologist in any way, shape or form. He is a second rate statistician with very little work experience in his own field. But, if he's all you've got, he's all you've got.

You have read his education background?

Yes. And his work history.

Top grades in mathematics at strong schools and prestigious scholarships?
Cut short to actually go to work. Some of us were born with a plastic spoon in our mouths but that doesn't make us incapable.

What the fuck is that supposed to mean? Who, exactly, are you accusing of having bought their diplomas? McIntyre has not struggled through life. If he'd wanted to go back and get a doctorate, he could have easily afforded it. The point is he has a masters. Admirable among the general population but not particularly impressive in a domain filled to overflowing with PhDs.

Climate science is not known for having the sharpest knives in the drawer, it is easy to see why talented amateurs can come in and find so many mistakes.

It is entirely possible that McIntyre is more familiar with statistics than someone who spent their career studying dendrochronology or atmospheric chemistry. But, again, McIntyre is not a climatologist of any stripe and he is not one of the world's or Canada's outstanding statisticians.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I know the man's education and work history. He is NOT a climatologist in any way, shape or form. He is a second rate statistician with very little work experience in his own field. But, if he's all you've got, he's all you've got.

You have read his education background?

Yes. And his work history.

Top grades in mathematics at strong schools and prestigious scholarships?
Cut short to actually go to work. Some of us were born with a plastic spoon in our mouths but that doesn't make us incapable.

What the fuck is that supposed to mean? Who, exactly, are you accusing of having bought their diplomas? McIntyre has not struggled through life. If he'd wanted to go back and get a doctorate, he could have easily afforded it. The point is he has a masters. Admirable among the general population but not particularly impressive in a domain filled to overflowing with PhDs.

Climate science is not known for having the sharpest knives in the drawer, it is easy to see why talented amateurs can come in and find so many mistakes.

It is entirely possible that McIntyre is more familiar with statistics than someone who spent their career studying dendrochronology or atmospheric chemistry. But, again, McIntyre is not a climatologist of any stripe and he is not one of the world's or Canada's outstanding statisticians.

ALL YOU GOT IS APPEAL TO AUTHORITY AND BELITTLEMENT without even finding out the facts. Your a shill and a moron. I remind you that Hitlers enablers we dealt with swiftly and permanently once the useful idiots had given him power. They too, like you, appealed to authority and "his good intentions"... They never looked into what it was Hitler believed just as alarmists are not looking into what their cult leaders believe as well.

 

[Crick]

I remind you that Hitlers enablers we dealt with swiftly and permanently once the useful idiots had given him power. They too, like you, appealed to authority and "his good intentions"... They never looked into what it was Hitler believed just as alarmists are not looking into what their cult leaders believe as well.

Are you threatening me?

And do you realize how stupid you look bringing Hitler into this?

 

[mamooth]

Reputation matters. McIntyre has been caught too often making idiot mistakes, refusing to acknowledge them and digging in deeper. When his claims are investigated deeply, McIntyre is always found to have flubbed or fudged something.

The trouble is it takes long hours to investigate, since DearLeader hides his fudging so well. Since McIntyre is just assumed to be making it all up now, nobody bothers wasting the time on him any more. Naturally, the cultists take that as proof of how everyone knows DearLeader is correct, instead of taking it as proof that the world considers DearLeader to be a clown.

 

[mamooth]

So explain why CERN, the most advanced, meticulously placed data gathering network on earth shows a cooling trend for the US, but the data that still requires adjustment shows a warming trend for the same area?

The USA isn't the world, pissdrinker.

Damn, you're stupid. Like most deniers, you constantly fail at the stuff that a third-grader could grasp.

Now cry at me some more, my sweet little bitch. You know you want to.