Official Global Warming thread (merged)

#6,527
#6,527
surface temperature monitoring station. This one is located in Ardmore OK. Bart considers this good science. Notice where the station is located on the paved concrete sidewalk next to the busy asphalt street. No urban heat island effect here folks. Of course Bart says that NOAA "adjusts" those effects out. But, the study proves the opposite happens. The good station data is adjusted to be more in alignment with the 2/3rds bad stations. Good science? Don't think so. We've known it all along Bart.
 

Attachments

  • ardmoreok.png
    ardmoreok.png
    277.2 KB · Views: 0
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#6,528
#6,528
Dr. Muller's head must be spinning. What a corrupt sell out. But they got to him. I hope Watts et. al. start investigating NOAA's sea data. Lots of shenanigan's going on there folks.
 
#6,529
#6,529
Sandvol said:
surface temperature monitoring station. This one is located in Ardmore OK. Bart considers this good science. Notice where the station is located on the paved concrete sidewalk next to the busy asphalt street. No urban heat island effect here folks. Of course Bart says that NOAA "adjusts" those effects out. But, the study proves the opposite happens. The good station data is adjusted to be more in alignment with the 2/3rds bad stations. Good science? Don't think so. We've known it all along Bart.
Click to expand...

I can give a similar example. We have a barometric pressure monitoring machine (laymans terms) at Orlando International. Once a year we are supposed to call the National Weather Service to compare our readings to their more calibrated one. Every year I call and its spot on. I mean 100% the same. Last year I asked them how they calibrate their machine (its just a small CPU and a vent tube) and they said they call the FAA what theirs says...

Our machine is located in a room on the bottom floor of the tower. They had been calling the secretary and asking for the reading off it...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#6,532
#6,532
Sandvol said:
You mean the one that says 2015 is the third warmest in the satellite record? I thought the troposphere was supposed to lead?
Click to expand...
You responded “troposphere says no” to my post about last month being the warmest November on record and 2016 likely being the hottest year on record. Well, UAH showed last month being the warmest November on record and 2016 likely being the hottest year on record. UAH says yes.

And if 2015 ends up being *only* the 3rd hottest year in UAH's satellite record, that’s not exactly strong evidence against global warming…
Sandvol said:
surface temperature monitoring station. This one is located in Ardmore OK. Bart considers this good science. Notice where the station is located on the paved concrete sidewalk next to the busy asphalt street. No urban heat island effect here folks. Of course Bart says that NOAA "adjusts" those effects out. But, the study proves the opposite happens. The good station data is adjusted to be more in alignment with the 2/3rds bad stations. Good science? Don't think so. We've known it all along Bart.
Click to expand...
Same ole’ tripe from Anthony Watts. He’s been trying to get this result for years but in the past has failed, hilariously. That is a lovely poster abstract. I can give you a proper analysis if he publishes a peer-reviewed paper in a scientific journal (not holding my breath…). In the meantime, I’ll refer you once again to NOAA’s adjustment FAQs.
Sandvol said:
Dr. Muller's head must be spinning. What a corrupt sell out. But they got to him. I hope Watts et. al. start investigating NOAA's sea data. Lots of shenanigan's going on there folks.
Click to expand...
Of course! Any scientist who actually looks at the data and concludes that the scientific consensus is correct is suddenly in on the conspiracy. That’s the self-sealing nature of conspiracy theories that I mentioned in another truther thread. No surprise many of the same people are active in both threads…

It’s funny that Anthony Watts, Judith Curry, and even you yourself said you would accept the results of Muller’s BEST project. But since that result isn’t what y’all wanted, you’ve reneged on your word. It’s hilariously, painfully b-e-a-utiful.

And by the way, the biggest adjustments to surface temperatures are over the oceans and they actually lower the global warming trend. So by all means, investigate those shenanigans Anthony!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#6,533
#6,533
VolsNSkinsFan said:
Ocean and Ice Services | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut

More sea ice data. 10 year high
Click to expand...
Ah, so you didn’t get that from the NSIDC like you said. Well the first difference I see between their figure and that from the Danish Meteorological Institute is that the DMI classifies areas with ice concentration higher than 30% as ice cover, whereas for the NSIDC the threshold is 15%. But more importantly, if you follow your link, you’ll see the disclaimer, “Please notice, that the sea ice extent in this plot is calculated with the coastal zones masked out. To see the absolute extent, go to this page.”

icecover_current_new.png


I encourage you to browse the rest of their website. Interesting stuff!

(Still no 10 year high)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#6,535
#6,535
#6,536
#6,536
BartW said:
You responded “troposphere says no” to my post about last month being the warmest November on record and 2016 likely being the hottest year on record. Well, UAH showed last month being the warmest November on record and 2016 likely being the hottest year on record. UAH says yes.

And if 2015 ends up being *only* the 3rd hottest year in UAH's satellite record, that’s not exactly strong evidence against global warming…

Same ole’ tripe from Anthony Watts. He’s been trying to get this result for years but in the past has failed, hilariously. That is a lovely poster abstract. I can give you a proper analysis if he publishes a peer-reviewed paper in a scientific journal (not holding my breath…). In the meantime, I’ll refer you once again to NOAA’s adjustment FAQs.

Of course! Any scientist who actually looks at the data and concludes that the scientific consensus is correct is suddenly in on the conspiracy. That’s the self-sealing nature of conspiracy theories that I mentioned in another truther thread. No surprise many of the same people are active in both threads…

It’s funny that Anthony Watts, Judith Curry, and even you yourself said you would accept the results of Muller’s BEST project. But since that result isn’t what y’all wanted, you’ve reneged on your word. It’s hilariously, painfully b-e-a-utiful.

And by the way, the biggest adjustments to surface temperatures are over the oceans and they actually lower the global warming trend. So by all means, investigate those shenanigans Anthony!
Click to expand...

Anthony Watts study is peer reviewed. And, I think if Watts investigates the sea data it will trend even lower.
 
#6,537
#6,537
BartW said:
Ah, so you didn’t get that from the NSIDC like you said. Well the first difference I see between their figure and that from the Danish Meteorological Institute is that the DMI classifies areas with ice concentration higher than 30% as ice cover, whereas for the NSIDC the threshold is 15%. But more importantly, if you follow your link, you’ll see the disclaimer, “Please notice, that the sea ice extent in this plot is calculated with the coastal zones masked out. To see the absolute extent, go to this page.”

icecover_current_new.png


I encourage you to browse the rest of their website. Interesting stuff!

(Still no 10 year high)
Click to expand...

Cherry Picker.
 
#6,538
#6,538
#6,539
#6,539
tumscalcium said:
Side note for curiosity. I'm sure you've been asked before, however...... You're from the Baltic area of Europe, yes? Then now live in Seattle (Kind of embarrassing as I'm from Washington, the rest of the state is better than that, but still). What are your ties to Tennessee? Just wondering.
Click to expand...

He went to undergrad at UTK. I think physics and geology. Haven't you read his tales about his outings with the geology professor waving the spectrophotometer at the sky?
 
#6,540
#6,540
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/


Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.
Click to expand...

For the right to go against science concerning global warming is only one of the reasons the GOP is known as the stupid party.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#6,542
#6,542
hog88 said:
You are the target group for fraud, dam old people will believe anything.
Click to expand...

97% hog, 97%.
You are saying that 97% actively publishing climate scientists are wrong.
How did you arrive at your decision that 97% of these scientist are wrong?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#6,548
#6,548
Sandvol said:
Anthony Watts study is peer reviewed. And, I think if Watts investigates the sea data it will trend even lower.
Click to expand...
Lol. Reviewed by his coauthors, maybe. Could’ve used another spell check…

You’ve obviously never done a poster for a huge scientific conference like AGU. There really is no peer review process. Pretty much anyone who pays the fee can present. That's not to say nobody presents peer reviewed work, but it is not necessary at all.

Let us know when Watts publishes his life's work in a scientific journal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#6,549
#6,549
tumscalcium said:
Side note for curiosity. I'm sure you've been asked before, however...... You're from the Baltic area of Europe, yes? Then now live in Seattle (Kind of embarrassing as I'm from Washington, the rest of the state is better than that, but still). What are your ties to Tennessee? Just wondering.
Click to expand...
Yes I’m from the Netherlands and actually live over on the east side currently. I moved around a bit but spent a good chunk of my childhood in the Knoxville area and then did my undergrad at UTK. I could have gone ivy but stayed close to home because (1) football (2) money and (3) some dumb chick. My father is also in the physics department at UT and my in-laws are politicians in Tennessee. Peyton came to my 4th grade class to teach us about helmet safety. I’ve already got my old lady to agree to cheesily name our first-born Peyton, whether it be a boy or a girl. Between my Tennessee and Netherlands gear I own a lot of orange!

So yeah, plenty of ties to Tennessee. I promise I’m not a random plant hired by Obama to convince the ignorant masses of the dangers of global warming, as some would have you believe… :)

And although I did grad school at UW and live in the area, I’m really just a passive Husky fan. I secretly root for the fightin Leaches when we’re not playing the Apple Cup (always liked Leach). Congrats on your bowl win tums
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top