One thing that you can't do is make assumptions without knowing everything about the environment:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/24/c ... more-96268
The problem with the arctic is that it doesn't behave the way we think. Also a proxy from place has to join with proxies in other locations and be checked to real data, not be adjusted to "hide the decline."
Last 100 May Be Warmest, Or Not
-
Schneibster
- Posts: 1805
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 5:21 am
- Location: Monterey, CA, USA
Re: Last 100 May Be Warmest, Or Not
Time number six: this is the hottest decade on record: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories201 ... imate.html
And now I'm hitting you with NOAA. You've been skating until now because your buddies took the government down. Now I have the big hammer. Prepare to suffer.
Reported for spam advertising wattsup dot com.
And now I'm hitting you with NOAA. You've been skating until now because your buddies took the government down. Now I have the big hammer. Prepare to suffer.
Reported for spam advertising wattsup dot com.
We need a directorate of science, and we need it to be voted on only by scientists. You don't get to vote on reality. Get over it. Elected officials that deny the findings of the Science Directorate are subject to immediate impeachment for incompetence.
Re: Last 100 May Be Warmest, Or Not
A 2010 article reporting on a 2009 report?Schneibster wrote:Time number six: this is the hottest decade on record: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories201 ... imate.html
And now I'm hitting you with NOAA. You've been skating until now because your buddies took the government down. Now I have the big hammer. Prepare to suffer.
Reported for spam advertising wattsup dot com.
You're just now getting around to the 2009 report?
Weren't they still ignoring the '30s, because that had been adjusted right out of the record?
"Untampered NOAA thermometer data shows that the past decade tied for the second hottest with the 1950s, and was much cooler than the 1930s. The pattern of warming is nearly identical to the first half of the last century."
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013 ... in-the-us/
And we're looking at a difference of just over 1 degree F between coldest and hottest decades. Oh, boy, we're all gonna boil.
As far as the 'tampering' goes - those were the 'adjustements' made to the raw data.
Some of the fraud was documented here...
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013 ... ds-part-3/
If you've got to 'adjust' your raw data like crazy to get it to produce the curves you want, you're not 'adjusting' it, you're just plain torturing it.
When opinion and reality conflict - guess which one is going to win in the long run.
-
Schneibster
- Posts: 1805
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 5:21 am
- Location: Monterey, CA, USA
Re: Last 100 May Be Warmest, Or Not
So are you claiming this is not the hottest decade on record?
Just for the record. I want to be able to link back to it later when you claim you never said it after you figure out you're wrong.
Just for the record. I want to be able to link back to it later when you claim you never said it after you figure out you're wrong.
We need a directorate of science, and we need it to be voted on only by scientists. You don't get to vote on reality. Get over it. Elected officials that deny the findings of the Science Directorate are subject to immediate impeachment for incompetence.
Re: Last 100 May Be Warmest, Or Not
Well, point out the link that disproves what I'm posting. Don't do your usual "Well, I'm not going to show you where you're wrong" garbage - that's a stupid, sophomoric trick. Also, look at the raw data - not the 'adjusted', massaged 'corrected' data. You start adding 'corrections' to the raw data and processing from there, you ended up with science fiction, not 'science'.Schneibster wrote:So are you claiming this is not the hottest decade on record?
Just for the record. I want to be able to link back to it later when you claim you never said it after you figure out you're wrong.
You might find this amusing...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state ... e_extremes
21 record high temps in the 1930s.
3 after 2000.
When opinion and reality conflict - guess which one is going to win in the long run.
Re: Last 100 May Be Warmest, Or Not
Here we go again, or where's the data III.
Now that the shutdown is over I took a look at our commenter's favorite desmogblog post and frankly I feel like that old lady in the Wendy's hamburger commercial. Where's the data? lets compare:
Here's desmog:
http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/09/23/gl ... -on-record
And the text for the first little bit:
With the release of a major climate science report by the United Nations coming this week, the self-proclaimed climate "skeptics," better referred to as the climate deniers or flat-earthers, are kicking it into high gear for their fossil fuel clients and right wing ringleaders.
What report? Now I think that most of us here know that this referring to the IPCC AR5. The person who drops into the blog might not, but it sound official and scary. Those deniers and flat earth types must be really stupid if they are not scared by the official UN report.
The likes of Tom Harris, better known for his lobbying work on behalf of the Canadian energy industry, and Fred Singer, formally a tobacco company expert-for-hire, are trying to make headlines again claiming that the warming of our planet has significantly slowed down. As Harris, a man with absolutely no scientific background in climate change, reassures us like a bunch of schoolchildren, "don't be scared."
Who are these guys and why are they relevant? Oh, they are some of those terrible deniers
wish it were the case that the rate of global warming has significantly slowed and that we don't have to "be scared" of more extreme weather events, droughts and flooding.
But according to the scientific community, the experts who have decades of training in the field of atmospheric and climactic study, our planet continues to warm. In fact, we just came through the hottest decade ever recorded. Not only was it the hottest decade recorded, it has occurred despite the presence of major cooling factors, like La Nina's and reduced solar activity. Such events should result in a significant dip in the earth's temperature, but they are only having a relatively slight cooling effect.
Ok now he's being really scary, but this is only his opinion. What experts, where is he referring to and why are there no quotes and citations. Finally there is a link to an Noaa page, there must be some real data there, right?: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories201 ... imate.html
Nope nothing there but some scary pictures, and oh yes, the link is three years old. Maybe the current "state of the climate isn't so scary so desmog didn't want us to know about it. In the end this is nothing more than a cheap hit piece of the kind so loved by certain political type with no real content to trouble themselves with. Combined with the scary red map it's obvious that the page is intended to frighten and agitate rather than inform. No science there.
Now lets look at Watts on the same topic. Now this entry is a couple years old, but as an example it works since desmog was referring to a three year old Noaa page. Without further ado, lets take a look:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/05/n ... ng-colder/
update below: New comparison graph of US temperatures in 1999 to present added – quite an eye opener – Anthony
There’s been a lot of buzz and conflicting reports over what the BEST data actually says, especially about the last decade where we have dueling opinions on a “slowing down”, “leveling off”, “standstill”, or “slight rise” (depending on whose pronouncements you read) of global warming.
Here’s some media quotes that have been thrown about recently about the BEST preliminary data and preliminary results:
“‘We see no evidence of it [global warming] having slowed down,’ he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme. There was, he added, ‘no levelling off’.” – Dr. Richard Muller
In The Sunday Mail Prof Curry said, the project’s research data show there has been no increase in world temperatures since the end of the Nineties:
‘There is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn’t stopped,’ she said. ‘To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.’ - Dr. Judith Curry in The Sunday Mail
Climatologist Dr. Pat Michaels in an essay at The GWPF wrote:
“The last ten years of the BEST data indeed show no statistically significant warming trend, no matter how you slice and dice them”. He adds: “Both records are in reasonable agreement about the length of time without a significant warming trend. In the CRU record it is 15.0 years. In the University of Alabama MSU it is 13.9, and in the Remote Sensing Systems version of the MSU it is 15.6 years. “
In the middle of all those quotes being bandied about, I get an email from Burt Rutan (yes THAT Burt Rutan) with a PDF slideshow titled Winter Trends in the United States in the Last Decade citing NCDC’s “climate at a glance” data. This is using the USHCN2 data, which we are told is the “best”, no pun intended. It had this interesting map of the USA for Winter Temperatures (December-February) by climate region on the first slide:
What do we see here? Data, lots of it, all of it sourced. No name calling. Quotes from opposing viewpoints. This is a page that's intended to inform you, not scare you. It keeps to the point. It doesn't hit people, it gives them a platform and opens discussion. That is the way science is supposed to work. That is why Watt's is the top science blog. That's why it's good place to get informed. Whatever Tony Watts may have done in the past, or his credentials were, doesn't change the attitude and the professionalism that his blog reflects every day. That goes for the people who contribute as well, many of whom, regardless of their positions are geophysicists with degrees. Not that that matters. The important thing is access to the facts and to have some fun on the journey. That's what science is about. Even if desmog had any actual data, the hottest measured decade in history wouldn't be what we should be looking at. The important thing, which our commenter and desmog are ignoring is the trend. Which is downward. The Climate team knows that and that's why their worried that their gravy train might be coming to an end. The temperature trend is not a positive slope and hasn't been for a long time, as even James Hansen has acknowledged and no amount of waving the "hottest decade around, over and over is not going to change that. Waving that lying deceptive piece of crap over and over doesn't prove anything other than it's a lying piece of crap. Maybe the commenter could find real climate websites and do some real research to make his points. I would say that the sidebar of Watts is a good place to start but he's said that he isn't going there because he's afraid that his closed mind might get opened or something.
Now as to the "big hammer" of the NOAA, that's only valid if you think that the NOAA has no bias or is essentially objective. But the entire tone of the state of the climate report seems to eschew objectiveness for advocacy, something that should not happen in a place where people are supposed to go for ACCURATE information. Of course replacing objectivity with activism regardless of the consequences for maintaining the credibility of services that people rely on is something that is happening all to often in places like the NOAA and the UK Met office:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/05/n ... er-events/
For instance claiming that hurricanes are going to be a greater problem year after year as the number of hurricanes goes down:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/08/n ... ve-normal/
Or blaming AGW for natural variation:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/26/n ... variation/
And not using standards to normalize your data:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/22/w ... standards/
And maybe the claims of the NOAA are exaggerated:
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/08/noaas- ... te-report/
and maybe it's been demonstrated that the NOAA has been caught "fixing" data to make spectacular claims:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/05/q ... mperature/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/02/n ... th-valley/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/30/i ... re-likely/
Then it's safe to say that using a NOAA report to substantiate your points without substantiation will not help your cause
Frankly waving a scientific report around where you don't have the background data just demonstrates how little you actually know.
Now that the shutdown is over I took a look at our commenter's favorite desmogblog post and frankly I feel like that old lady in the Wendy's hamburger commercial. Where's the data? lets compare:
Here's desmog:
http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/09/23/gl ... -on-record
And the text for the first little bit:
With the release of a major climate science report by the United Nations coming this week, the self-proclaimed climate "skeptics," better referred to as the climate deniers or flat-earthers, are kicking it into high gear for their fossil fuel clients and right wing ringleaders.
What report? Now I think that most of us here know that this referring to the IPCC AR5. The person who drops into the blog might not, but it sound official and scary. Those deniers and flat earth types must be really stupid if they are not scared by the official UN report.
The likes of Tom Harris, better known for his lobbying work on behalf of the Canadian energy industry, and Fred Singer, formally a tobacco company expert-for-hire, are trying to make headlines again claiming that the warming of our planet has significantly slowed down. As Harris, a man with absolutely no scientific background in climate change, reassures us like a bunch of schoolchildren, "don't be scared."
Who are these guys and why are they relevant? Oh, they are some of those terrible deniers
wish it were the case that the rate of global warming has significantly slowed and that we don't have to "be scared" of more extreme weather events, droughts and flooding.
But according to the scientific community, the experts who have decades of training in the field of atmospheric and climactic study, our planet continues to warm. In fact, we just came through the hottest decade ever recorded. Not only was it the hottest decade recorded, it has occurred despite the presence of major cooling factors, like La Nina's and reduced solar activity. Such events should result in a significant dip in the earth's temperature, but they are only having a relatively slight cooling effect.
Ok now he's being really scary, but this is only his opinion. What experts, where is he referring to and why are there no quotes and citations. Finally there is a link to an Noaa page, there must be some real data there, right?: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories201 ... imate.html
Nope nothing there but some scary pictures, and oh yes, the link is three years old. Maybe the current "state of the climate isn't so scary so desmog didn't want us to know about it. In the end this is nothing more than a cheap hit piece of the kind so loved by certain political type with no real content to trouble themselves with. Combined with the scary red map it's obvious that the page is intended to frighten and agitate rather than inform. No science there.
Now lets look at Watts on the same topic. Now this entry is a couple years old, but as an example it works since desmog was referring to a three year old Noaa page. Without further ado, lets take a look:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/05/n ... ng-colder/
update below: New comparison graph of US temperatures in 1999 to present added – quite an eye opener – Anthony
There’s been a lot of buzz and conflicting reports over what the BEST data actually says, especially about the last decade where we have dueling opinions on a “slowing down”, “leveling off”, “standstill”, or “slight rise” (depending on whose pronouncements you read) of global warming.
Here’s some media quotes that have been thrown about recently about the BEST preliminary data and preliminary results:
“‘We see no evidence of it [global warming] having slowed down,’ he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme. There was, he added, ‘no levelling off’.” – Dr. Richard Muller
In The Sunday Mail Prof Curry said, the project’s research data show there has been no increase in world temperatures since the end of the Nineties:
‘There is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn’t stopped,’ she said. ‘To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.’ - Dr. Judith Curry in The Sunday Mail
Climatologist Dr. Pat Michaels in an essay at The GWPF wrote:
“The last ten years of the BEST data indeed show no statistically significant warming trend, no matter how you slice and dice them”. He adds: “Both records are in reasonable agreement about the length of time without a significant warming trend. In the CRU record it is 15.0 years. In the University of Alabama MSU it is 13.9, and in the Remote Sensing Systems version of the MSU it is 15.6 years. “
In the middle of all those quotes being bandied about, I get an email from Burt Rutan (yes THAT Burt Rutan) with a PDF slideshow titled Winter Trends in the United States in the Last Decade citing NCDC’s “climate at a glance” data. This is using the USHCN2 data, which we are told is the “best”, no pun intended. It had this interesting map of the USA for Winter Temperatures (December-February) by climate region on the first slide:
What do we see here? Data, lots of it, all of it sourced. No name calling. Quotes from opposing viewpoints. This is a page that's intended to inform you, not scare you. It keeps to the point. It doesn't hit people, it gives them a platform and opens discussion. That is the way science is supposed to work. That is why Watt's is the top science blog. That's why it's good place to get informed. Whatever Tony Watts may have done in the past, or his credentials were, doesn't change the attitude and the professionalism that his blog reflects every day. That goes for the people who contribute as well, many of whom, regardless of their positions are geophysicists with degrees. Not that that matters. The important thing is access to the facts and to have some fun on the journey. That's what science is about. Even if desmog had any actual data, the hottest measured decade in history wouldn't be what we should be looking at. The important thing, which our commenter and desmog are ignoring is the trend. Which is downward. The Climate team knows that and that's why their worried that their gravy train might be coming to an end. The temperature trend is not a positive slope and hasn't been for a long time, as even James Hansen has acknowledged and no amount of waving the "hottest decade around, over and over is not going to change that. Waving that lying deceptive piece of crap over and over doesn't prove anything other than it's a lying piece of crap. Maybe the commenter could find real climate websites and do some real research to make his points. I would say that the sidebar of Watts is a good place to start but he's said that he isn't going there because he's afraid that his closed mind might get opened or something.
Now as to the "big hammer" of the NOAA, that's only valid if you think that the NOAA has no bias or is essentially objective. But the entire tone of the state of the climate report seems to eschew objectiveness for advocacy, something that should not happen in a place where people are supposed to go for ACCURATE information. Of course replacing objectivity with activism regardless of the consequences for maintaining the credibility of services that people rely on is something that is happening all to often in places like the NOAA and the UK Met office:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/05/n ... er-events/
For instance claiming that hurricanes are going to be a greater problem year after year as the number of hurricanes goes down:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/08/n ... ve-normal/
Or blaming AGW for natural variation:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/26/n ... variation/
And not using standards to normalize your data:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/22/w ... standards/
And maybe the claims of the NOAA are exaggerated:
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/08/noaas- ... te-report/
and maybe it's been demonstrated that the NOAA has been caught "fixing" data to make spectacular claims:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/05/q ... mperature/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/02/n ... th-valley/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/30/i ... re-likely/
Then it's safe to say that using a NOAA report to substantiate your points without substantiation will not help your cause
Frankly waving a scientific report around where you don't have the background data just demonstrates how little you actually know.
-
Schneibster
- Posts: 1805
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 5:21 am
- Location: Monterey, CA, USA
Re: Last 100 May Be Warmest, Or Not
I asked first. And stop trying to change the subject.JLawson wrote:Well, point out the link that disproves what I'm posting.Schneibster wrote:So are you claiming this is not the hottest decade on record?
Just for the record. I want to be able to link back to it later when you claim you never said it after you figure out you're wrong.
But very well. See below.
We need a directorate of science, and we need it to be voted on only by scientists. You don't get to vote on reality. Get over it. Elected officials that deny the findings of the Science Directorate are subject to immediate impeachment for incompetence.
-
Schneibster
- Posts: 1805
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 5:21 am
- Location: Monterey, CA, USA
Re: Last 100 May Be Warmest, Or Not
Record US temperatures by state do not mean global warming. Along with climate is not weather you need to regularly be reminded that climate is not local. Sorry, I couldn't prove what you're linking is wrong; so instead I proved it irrelevant.JLawson wrote:Well, point out the link that disproves what I'm posting. Don't do your usual "Well, I'm not going to show you where you're wrong" garbage - that's a stupid, sophomoric trick. Also, look at the raw data - not the 'adjusted', massaged 'corrected' data. You start adding 'corrections' to the raw data and processing from there, you ended up with science fiction, not 'science'.Schneibster wrote:So are you claiming this is not the hottest decade on record?
Just for the record. I want to be able to link back to it later when you claim you never said it after you figure out you're wrong.
You might find this amusing...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state ... e_extremes
21 record high temps in the 1930s.
3 after 2000.
Last edited by Schneibster on Sat Oct 26, 2013 8:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
We need a directorate of science, and we need it to be voted on only by scientists. You don't get to vote on reality. Get over it. Elected officials that deny the findings of the Science Directorate are subject to immediate impeachment for incompetence.
-
Schneibster
- Posts: 1805
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 5:21 am
- Location: Monterey, CA, USA
Re: Last 100 May Be Warmest, Or Not
You said "Where's the data?" and I ask you the same. Where's the data? The answer is you cut it off when you quoted them.Jccarlton wrote:Here we go again, or where's the data III.
Now that the shutdown is over I took a look at our commenter's favorite desmogblog post and frankly I feel like that old lady in the Wendy's hamburger commercial. Where's the data? lets compare:
Here's desmog:
http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/09/23/gl ... -on-record
And the text for the first little bit:
With the release of a major climate science report by the United Nations coming this week, the self-proclaimed climate "skeptics," better referred to as the climate deniers or flat-earthers, are kicking it into high gear for their fossil fuel clients and right wing ringleaders.
We need a directorate of science, and we need it to be voted on only by scientists. You don't get to vote on reality. Get over it. Elected officials that deny the findings of the Science Directorate are subject to immediate impeachment for incompetence.