Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I'm really a little shocked 2011 hasn't been declared the warmest year ever...
Note: No state had the all-time record high temperature in 2010.
Record Highest Temperatures by State — Infoplease.com
Finding many of those record heat red dots? Hee hee.
HAMweather Climate Center - Record Low Temperatures for The Past Week - Continental US View
See CON$ already know how STUPID their arguments are so they have to preemptively mock the obvious flaw in their argument.its been two weeks since the new year. Ive seen dozens of stories about 2010tied for warmest ever, some stories even put 2010 as second all-time.
but what is happening in the best documented, most thoroughly measured country in the world? 23rd. doncha think with all the media hype and statements released by govt agencies that someone would have thought that was news worthy? apparently not.
Old Rocks is going to come on and say the USA is only 2% of the globe, or the land mass, whatever. Is it 2% of the measuring stations? does the continent of Africa have as many stations, and do we know what shape they are in? how about south america, or the middle east?
Now if you think back just a little when deniers Christy and Spencer were fudging the satellite data at UAH by using the OPPOSITE sign to correct for diurnal satellite drift to create data that showed global cooling, we were told that ground station data was unreliable and only satellite data from UAH only was accurate. Satellite data from other sources that matched the ground station data was not acceptable because both came from HANSEN.
Now that deniers Christy and Spencer can no longer cook the satellite data, satellite data is suddenly not reliable. Now the only reliable data comes from US ground stations collected by HANSEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Deniers have to be the STUPIDEST people on Earth.
only accredited climate(gate) officials are allowed to adjust govt graphs. your graffiti may incur criminal charges!
once upon a time everyone knew the '30's were hot but obviously we were wrong. the scientists have gone back and corrected history to fully illustrate the influence of global warming.
as you can see, 1934 was incorrectly considered the warmest in US history until NASA scientists discovered the true numbers. the blip in 2007 was caused by Steve McIntyre discovering a Y2K bug in the code. the original correction put 1934 back in first place (1921 in third!) but as soon as no one was looking the correction was adjusted and 1998 was back in first place where it belongs. praise be unto Hansen
Ave Hansen! Now all bow to the gods of statistical shenanigans...mmmmmmmmm
Hmmmm........ It just so happens that Dr. Hansen is not only considered the leading climate scientist in the US, but most consider him to be the leading climate scientist in the world. Now you are accusing him of major fraud. Fraud equal to that of the the doctor that falsified the vacination data.
You claim that you are a scientist with membership both in the Royal Society and the American Geophysical Union. So, if you know for sure that the data is false, then it is your duty to show that to be the case. Failing to do that makes you an accessory to that fraud. However, if you are just shooting bull, then it is you that is the fraud.
See CON$ already know how STUPID their arguments are so they have to preemptively mock the obvious flaw in their argument.its been two weeks since the new year. Ive seen dozens of stories about 2010tied for warmest ever, some stories even put 2010 as second all-time.
but what is happening in the best documented, most thoroughly measured country in the world? 23rd. doncha think with all the media hype and statements released by govt agencies that someone would have thought that was news worthy? apparently not.
Old Rocks is going to come on and say the USA is only 2% of the globe, or the land mass, whatever. Is it 2% of the measuring stations? does the continent of Africa have as many stations, and do we know what shape they are in? how about south america, or the middle east?
Now if you think back just a little when deniers Christy and Spencer were fudging the satellite data at UAH by using the OPPOSITE sign to correct for diurnal satellite drift to create data that showed global cooling, we were told that ground station data was unreliable and only satellite data from UAH only was accurate. Satellite data from other sources that matched the ground station data was not acceptable because both came from HANSEN.
Now that deniers Christy and Spencer can no longer cook the satellite data, satellite data is suddenly not reliable. Now the only reliable data comes from US ground stations collected by HANSEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Deniers have to be the STUPIDEST people on Earth.
The surface data is not perfect and has problems in areas. But I doubt it is off by much. I read through giss paper from hansen and he made a ok case I believe....Satellite data should be used to check the surface data,,,meaning Giss, Noaa are our two official surface records that cover the planet. The other don't cover the arctic and shouldn't be used because of that. Not planet wide.
only accredited climate(gate) officials are allowed to adjust govt graphs. your graffiti may incur criminal charges!
once upon a time everyone knew the '30's were hot but obviously we were wrong. the scientists have gone back and corrected history to fully illustrate the influence of global warming.
as you can see, 1934 was incorrectly considered the warmest in US history until NASA scientists discovered the true numbers. the blip in 2007 was caused by Steve McIntyre discovering a Y2K bug in the code. the original correction put 1934 back in first place (1921 in third!) but as soon as no one was looking the correction was adjusted and 1998 was back in first place where it belongs. praise be unto Hansen
Ave Hansen! Now all bow to the gods of statistical shenanigans...mmmmmmmmm
Hmmmm........ It just so happens that Dr. Hansen is not only considered the leading climate scientist in the US, but most consider him to be the leading climate scientist in the world. Now you are accusing him of major fraud. Fraud equal to that of the the doctor that falsified the vacination data.
You claim that you are a scientist with membership both in the Royal Society and the American Geophysical Union. So, if you know for sure that the data is false, then it is your duty to show that to be the case. Failing to do that makes you an accessory to that fraud. However, if you are just shooting bull, then it is you that is the fraud.
See CON$ already know how STUPID their arguments are so they have to preemptively mock the obvious flaw in their argument.
Now if you think back just a little when deniers Christy and Spencer were fudging the satellite data at UAH by using the OPPOSITE sign to correct for diurnal satellite drift to create data that showed global cooling, we were told that ground station data was unreliable and only satellite data from UAH only was accurate. Satellite data from other sources that matched the ground station data was not acceptable because both came from HANSEN.
Now that deniers Christy and Spencer can no longer cook the satellite data, satellite data is suddenly not reliable. Now the only reliable data comes from US ground stations collected by HANSEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Deniers have to be the STUPIDEST people on Earth.
Matthew, my point in bringing up the US temps is to get people to think about the global temps. the US has far and away the most stations, and even though they are documented to have many problems they are still the best in the world. and they show less warming.
in a previous post I showed that when you only look at long term, complete global temp stations that rural and suburban sites show no warming but the urban ones show large warming.
in other posts it has been shown that arctic and antarctic areas have few stations (mostly airports) and those few readings are infilled over huge areas.
Hansen when asked about the reordering of warmest years after the Y2K fiasco declared that american temps didnt matter because the US landmass was only 2% and the measurements were full of 'noise'. if the US numbers are noisy what are the numbers like around the world? australian and NZ temps are shown to be manipulated and 'adjusted' to a degree that is larger than the supposed warming. I have seen examples of scandanavian data that are just as bad. can we have faith in african numbers? asian numbers?
GISS global temps by stations-
UAH satellite global temps-
I'm having a hard time seeing the excellent agreement between them.
perhaps its just a strange way of weighting bizarro infilled data points in some other part of the world and lessening the impact of numerous and documented data from here but somehow the numbers arent adding up to me.
BULLSHIT!!!See CON$ already know how STUPID their arguments are so they have to preemptively mock the obvious flaw in their argument.its been two weeks since the new year. Ive seen dozens of stories about 2010tied for warmest ever, some stories even put 2010 as second all-time.
but what is happening in the best documented, most thoroughly measured country in the world? 23rd. doncha think with all the media hype and statements released by govt agencies that someone would have thought that was news worthy? apparently not.
Old Rocks is going to come on and say the USA is only 2% of the globe, or the land mass, whatever. Is it 2% of the measuring stations? does the continent of Africa have as many stations, and do we know what shape they are in? how about south america, or the middle east?
Now if you think back just a little when deniers Christy and Spencer were fudging the satellite data at UAH by using the OPPOSITE sign to correct for diurnal satellite drift to create data that showed global cooling, we were told that ground station data was unreliable and only satellite data from UAH only was accurate. Satellite data from other sources that matched the ground station data was not acceptable because both came from HANSEN.
Now that deniers Christy and Spencer can no longer cook the satellite data, satellite data is suddenly not reliable. Now the only reliable data comes from US ground stations collected by HANSEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Deniers have to be the STUPIDEST people on Earth.
I've asked you before to lay out your case against Christie and Spencer but you never do. are you talking about the 0.004 correction?
Or perhaps it's the dishonest use of one chart beginning in 1880 and the other beginning 100 years later in 1979.See CON$ already know how STUPID their arguments are so they have to preemptively mock the obvious flaw in their argument.
Now if you think back just a little when deniers Christy and Spencer were fudging the satellite data at UAH by using the OPPOSITE sign to correct for diurnal satellite drift to create data that showed global cooling, we were told that ground station data was unreliable and only satellite data from UAH only was accurate. Satellite data from other sources that matched the ground station data was not acceptable because both came from HANSEN.
Now that deniers Christy and Spencer can no longer cook the satellite data, satellite data is suddenly not reliable. Now the only reliable data comes from US ground stations collected by HANSEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Deniers have to be the STUPIDEST people on Earth.
Matthew, my point in bringing up the US temps is to get people to think about the global temps. the US has far and away the most stations, and even though they are documented to have many problems they are still the best in the world. and they show less warming.
in a previous post I showed that when you only look at long term, complete global temp stations that rural and suburban sites show no warming but the urban ones show large warming.
in other posts it has been shown that arctic and antarctic areas have few stations (mostly airports) and those few readings are infilled over huge areas.
Hansen when asked about the reordering of warmest years after the Y2K fiasco declared that american temps didnt matter because the US landmass was only 2% and the measurements were full of 'noise'. if the US numbers are noisy what are the numbers like around the world? australian and NZ temps are shown to be manipulated and 'adjusted' to a degree that is larger than the supposed warming. I have seen examples of scandanavian data that are just as bad. can we have faith in african numbers? asian numbers?
GISS global temps by stations-
UAH satellite global temps-
I'm having a hard time seeing the excellent agreement between them.
perhaps its just a strange way of weighting bizarro infilled data points in some other part of the world and lessening the impact of numerous and documented data from here but somehow the numbers arent adding up to me.
BULLSHIT!!!See CON$ already know how STUPID their arguments are so they have to preemptively mock the obvious flaw in their argument.
Now if you think back just a little when deniers Christy and Spencer were fudging the satellite data at UAH by using the OPPOSITE sign to correct for diurnal satellite drift to create data that showed global cooling, we were told that ground station data was unreliable and only satellite data from UAH only was accurate. Satellite data from other sources that matched the ground station data was not acceptable because both came from HANSEN.
Now that deniers Christy and Spencer can no longer cook the satellite data, satellite data is suddenly not reliable. Now the only reliable data comes from US ground stations collected by HANSEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Deniers have to be the STUPIDEST people on Earth.
I've asked you before to lay out your case against Christie and Spencer but you never do. are you talking about the 0.004 correction?
Every time I do you cut and run.
Christy and Spencer's correction went from .05 C COOLING to .12 C WARMING which in CON$ervative fuzzy math comes to a correction of .004 C.
Ta ta again.
Significant errors found in global warming study : Deltoid
For years now global warming skeptics have been using satellite measurements to argue that global warming isn't happening, For example (from 1998):
Surface-based temperature records are too few in number and too unevenly spaced to generate accurate global temperature maps. Only 30 percent of the world's surface is land, so land-based temperature stations measure less than one-third of the Earth's climate. Urban stations, which are influenced by city heat anomalies, are over-represented; deserts, mountains, and forests are under-represented.Then other scientists analysed the satellite data and found that it showed warming similar to the surface record. Global warming skeptics didn't miss a beat -- obviously the scientists who got results the skeptics didn't like were guilty of fraud:
The global temperature record produced from satellite data has none of the problems faced by surface-based thermometers. Orbiting satellites cover 99 percent of the Earth's surface, not less than a third, and measure a layer of the troposphere that is above the effects of urban heat islands.
Satellite measurements are accurate to within 0.001 C. Because new satellites are launched into orbit by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) before old ones are retired, overlapping data sets are created, ensuring that the new satellites are calibrated correctly. ...
According to Dr. Roy Spencer, meteorologist and team leader of the NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center, "The temperatures we measure from space are actually on a very slight downward trend since 1979 ... the trend is about 0.05 C per decade cooling."
atmospheric data from both satellites and weather balloons show only a trifling rise in temperature over the past couple of decades, while the surface temperature has been rising steadily. In 2000, a National Research Council study confirmed the data's discrepancy with the model.So I'm wondering how the skeptics will spin the latest development. Spencer and Christy have revised their numbers and now they seem to agree with the surface record. William Connolley has a nice plot of the new numbers.
The proper scientific response would be to reexamine the models and adjust them to fit reality. But that hasn't happened in climatology. Instead, there have been repeated attempts to manipulate the satellite data fit the models. Recently, a study published in the journal Nature tries to hammer the square peg of the satellite data into the round hole of the theory, using a method that satellite temperature experts John Christy and Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama at Huntsville had considered and rejected as incorrect in 1991.
The black is the 5.2 series; the red is the 5.1; the blue is RSS. Trend lines are drawn on.
FinancialPost.com has the details:
William Connolley, arguably the worlds most influential global warming advocate after Al Gore, has lost his bully pulpit. Connolley did not wield his influence by the quality of his research or the force of his argument but through his administrative position at Wikipedia, the most popular reference source on the planet.
Through his position, Connolley for years kept dissenting views on global warming out of Wikipedia, allowing only those that promoted the view that global warming represented a threat to mankind. As a result, Wikipedia became a leading source of global warming propaganda, with Connolley its chief propagandist.
His career as a global warming propagandist has now been stopped, following a unanimous verdict that came down today through an arbitration proceeding conducted by Wikipedia. In the decision, a slap-down for the once-powerful Connolley by his peers, he has been barred from participating in any article, discussion or forum dealing with global warming. In addition, because he rewrote biographies of scientists and others he disagreed with, to either belittle their accomplishments or make them appear to be frauds, Wikipedia barred him again unanimously from editing biographies of those in the climate change field.
Don't you deniers ever get tired of lying?????BULLSHIT!!!I've asked you before to lay out your case against Christie and Spencer but you never do. are you talking about the 0.004 correction?
Every time I do you cut and run.
Christy and Spencer's correction went from .05 C COOLING to .12 C WARMING which in CON$ervative fuzzy math comes to a correction of .004 C.
Ta ta again.
Significant errors found in global warming study : Deltoid
For years now global warming skeptics have been using satellite measurements to argue that global warming isn't happening, For example (from 1998):Surface-based temperature records are too few in number and too unevenly spaced to generate accurate global temperature maps. Only 30 percent of the world's surface is land, so land-based temperature stations measure less than one-third of the Earth's climate. Urban stations, which are influenced by city heat anomalies, are over-represented; deserts, mountains, and forests are under-represented.Then other scientists analysed the satellite data and found that it showed warming similar to the surface record. Global warming skeptics didn't miss a beat -- obviously the scientists who got results the skeptics didn't like were guilty of fraud:
The global temperature record produced from satellite data has none of the problems faced by surface-based thermometers. Orbiting satellites cover 99 percent of the Earth's surface, not less than a third, and measure a layer of the troposphere that is above the effects of urban heat islands.
Satellite measurements are accurate to within 0.001 C. Because new satellites are launched into orbit by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) before old ones are retired, overlapping data sets are created, ensuring that the new satellites are calibrated correctly. ...
According to Dr. Roy Spencer, meteorologist and team leader of the NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center, "The temperatures we measure from space are actually on a very slight downward trend since 1979 ... the trend is about 0.05 C per decade cooling."
atmospheric data from both satellites and weather balloons show only a trifling rise in temperature over the past couple of decades, while the surface temperature has been rising steadily. In 2000, a National Research Council study confirmed the data's discrepancy with the model.So I'm wondering how the skeptics will spin the latest development. Spencer and Christy have revised their numbers and now they seem to agree with the surface record. William Connolley has a nice plot of the new numbers.
The proper scientific response would be to reexamine the models and adjust them to fit reality. But that hasn't happened in climatology. Instead, there have been repeated attempts to manipulate the satellite data fit the models. Recently, a study published in the journal Nature tries to hammer the square peg of the satellite data into the round hole of the theory, using a method that satellite temperature experts John Christy and Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama at Huntsville had considered and rejected as incorrect in 1991.
The black is the 5.2 series; the red is the 5.1; the blue is RSS. Trend lines are drawn on.
I don't usually like to do this but the blog comments that you linked to all seem to refer back to Connelley
please try again, find some real articles and we'll discuss it.FinancialPost.com has the details:
William Connolley, arguably the world’s most influential global warming advocate after Al Gore, has lost his bully pulpit. Connolley did not wield his influence by the quality of his research or the force of his argument but through his administrative position at Wikipedia, the most popular reference source on the planet.
Through his position, Connolley for years kept dissenting views on global warming out of Wikipedia, allowing only those that promoted the view that global warming represented a threat to mankind. As a result, Wikipedia became a leading source of global warming propaganda, with Connolley its chief propagandist.
His career as a global warming propagandist has now been stopped, following a unanimous verdict that came down today through an arbitration proceeding conducted by Wikipedia. In the decision, a slap-down for the once-powerful Connolley by his peers, he has been barred from participating in any article, discussion or forum dealing with global warming. In addition, because he rewrote biographies of scientists and others he disagreed with, to either belittle their accomplishments or make them appear to be frauds, Wikipedia barred him — again unanimously — from editing biographies of those in the climate change field.
Hard sciences aren't remotely like social science, kids.
There is a RIGHT ANSWER in hard science like there never is in social science.
I mean I know its fun to debate these issues, but it's pointless, too.
No amount of political pressure is going to change the facts in this case.
In the case of global climate change, it either is or is not true.
In the case of if global climate change is happening it is either true or it is not that mankind has played a role in that.
Polls don't matter, and our opinions don't matter, either.
And since nobody here is really qualified to evaluate the worth of these studies?
Well...what the point of taking what any of you say seriously?
As to longer term global climate?
I', still of the opinion that even if we have the data and it is 100% accurate, we still cannot predict what the outcome of the climate will be.
Yeah that's right, folks.
Science isn't going to be able to tell us jackshit about what it all will mean, not even if every measurement is right.
The system is way too complex for us to model.
Don't you deniers ever get tired of lying?????BULLSHIT!!!
Every time I do you cut and run.
Christy and Spencer's correction went from .05 C COOLING to .12 C WARMING which in CON$ervative fuzzy math comes to a correction of .004 C.
Ta ta again.
Significant errors found in global warming study : Deltoid
For years now global warming skeptics have been using satellite measurements to argue that global warming isn't happening, For example (from 1998):Surface-based temperature records are too few in number and too unevenly spaced to generate accurate global temperature maps. Only 30 percent of the world's surface is land, so land-based temperature stations measure less than one-third of the Earth's climate. Urban stations, which are influenced by city heat anomalies, are over-represented; deserts, mountains, and forests are under-represented.Then other scientists analysed the satellite data and found that it showed warming similar to the surface record. Global warming skeptics didn't miss a beat -- obviously the scientists who got results the skeptics didn't like were guilty of fraud:
The global temperature record produced from satellite data has none of the problems faced by surface-based thermometers. Orbiting satellites cover 99 percent of the Earth's surface, not less than a third, and measure a layer of the troposphere that is above the effects of urban heat islands.
Satellite measurements are accurate to within 0.001 C. Because new satellites are launched into orbit by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) before old ones are retired, overlapping data sets are created, ensuring that the new satellites are calibrated correctly. ...
According to Dr. Roy Spencer, meteorologist and team leader of the NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center, "The temperatures we measure from space are actually on a very slight downward trend since 1979 ... the trend is about 0.05 C per decade cooling."
atmospheric data from both satellites and weather balloons show only a trifling rise in temperature over the past couple of decades, while the surface temperature has been rising steadily. In 2000, a National Research Council study confirmed the data's discrepancy with the model.So I'm wondering how the skeptics will spin the latest development. Spencer and Christy have revised their numbers and now they seem to agree with the surface record. William Connolley has a nice plot of the new numbers.
The proper scientific response would be to reexamine the models and adjust them to fit reality. But that hasn't happened in climatology. Instead, there have been repeated attempts to manipulate the satellite data fit the models. Recently, a study published in the journal Nature tries to hammer the square peg of the satellite data into the round hole of the theory, using a method that satellite temperature experts John Christy and Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama at Huntsville had considered and rejected as incorrect in 1991.
The black is the 5.2 series; the red is the 5.1; the blue is RSS. Trend lines are drawn on.
I don't usually like to do this but the blog comments that you linked to all seem to refer back to Connelley
please try again, find some real articles and we'll discuss it.FinancialPost.com has the details:
William Connolley, arguably the worlds most influential global warming advocate after Al Gore, has lost his bully pulpit. Connolley did not wield his influence by the quality of his research or the force of his argument but through his administrative position at Wikipedia, the most popular reference source on the planet.
Through his position, Connolley for years kept dissenting views on global warming out of Wikipedia, allowing only those that promoted the view that global warming represented a threat to mankind. As a result, Wikipedia became a leading source of global warming propaganda, with Connolley its chief propagandist.
His career as a global warming propagandist has now been stopped, following a unanimous verdict that came down today through an arbitration proceeding conducted by Wikipedia. In the decision, a slap-down for the once-powerful Connolley by his peers, he has been barred from participating in any article, discussion or forum dealing with global warming. In addition, because he rewrote biographies of scientists and others he disagreed with, to either belittle their accomplishments or make them appear to be frauds, Wikipedia barred him again unanimously from editing biographies of those in the climate change field.
The ONLY thing from Connolley is the chart, which you can't rebut nor any of the other information I posted, so you get some non-scientific right wing whacko hack site to attack the man personally and you ignore everything else!
So here is a link to a paper co-authored by John Christy where he admits that when his and Spencer's errors are corrected, there is no discrepancy between Troposphere temps and surface temps:
Are you now going to attack Christy for admitting the truth you can't accept or rebut????
http://www.climatescience.gov/Librar...al-execsum.pdf
Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming
near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to
challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human induced global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial
global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde
data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant
discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and
radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets
have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies. __________________
As was pointed out and highlighted so no one, not even you could miss, that confirmation of the accuracy of the ground station data and the models after the errors in the UAH data were corrected came from denier Christy himself.Don't you deniers ever get tired of lying?????I don't usually like to do this but the blog comments that you linked to all seem to refer back to Connelley
please try again, find some real articles and we'll discuss it.
The ONLY thing from Connolley is the chart, which you can't rebut nor any of the other information I posted, so you get some non-scientific right wing whacko hack site to attack the man personally and you ignore everything else!
So here is a link to a paper co-authored by John Christy where he admits that when his and Spencer's errors are corrected, there is no discrepancy between Troposphere temps and surface temps:
Are you now going to attack Christy for admitting the truth you can't accept or rebut????
http://www.climatescience.gov/Librar...al-execsum.pdf
Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming
near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to
challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human induced global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial
global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde
data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant
discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and
radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets
have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies. __________________
unfucking real! that is your proof??????? did you even read it? its a feel good kumbaya article about how climate models aren't as out of whack as they used to be. not totally inconsistent with data at all times and at all altitudes. thats five minutes out of my life that I can never get back.
that had zero to do with what you claimed
As was pointed out and highlighted so no one, not even you could miss, that confirmation of the accuracy of the ground station data and the models after the errors in the UAH data were corrected came from denier Christy himself.Don't you deniers ever get tired of lying?????
The ONLY thing from Connolley is the chart, which you can't rebut nor any of the other information I posted, so you get some non-scientific right wing whacko hack site to attack the man personally and you ignore everything else!
So here is a link to a paper co-authored by John Christy where he admits that when his and Spencer's errors are corrected, there is no discrepancy between Troposphere temps and surface temps:
Are you now going to attack Christy for admitting the truth you can't accept or rebut????
http://www.climatescience.gov/Librar...al-execsum.pdf
Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming
near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to
challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human induced global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial
global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde
data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant
discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and
radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets
have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies. __________________
unfucking real! that is your proof??????? did you even read it? its a feel good kumbaya article about how climate models aren't as out of whack as they used to be. not totally inconsistent with data at all times and at all altitudes. thats five minutes out of my life that I can never get back.
that had zero to do with what you claimed
[ QUOTE=edthecynic;3214976]As was pointed out and highlighted so no one, not even you could miss, that confirmation of the accuracy of the ground station data and the models after the errors in the UAH data were corrected came from denier Christy himself.Don't you deniers ever get tired of lying?????
The ONLY thing from Connolley is the chart, which you can't rebut nor any of the other information I posted, so you get some non-scientific right wing whacko hack site to attack the man personally and you ignore everything else!
So here is a link to a paper co-authored by John Christy where he admits that when his and Spencer's errors are corrected, there is no discrepancy between Troposphere temps and surface temps:
Are you now going to attack Christy for admitting the truth you can't accept or rebut????
http://www.climatescience.gov/Librar...al-execsum.pdf
Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming
near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to
challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human induced global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial
global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde
data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant
discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and
radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets
have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies. __________________
unfucking real! that is your proof??????? did you even read it? its a feel good kumbaya article about how climate models aren't as out of whack as they used to be. not totally inconsistent with data at all times and at all altitudes. thats five minutes out of my life that I can never get back.
that had zero to do with what you claimed
It clearly says Spencer and Christy's UAH data was what was out of whack and the models, the RSS and ground station data was accurate all along, never out of whack, but as a denier you got it completely backwards. No surprise there.
Just to repeat it so you get it this time, it was the UAH satellite data that deniers were using that was out of whack and now is not "as out of whack as it used to be" since Christy and Spencer's errors were corrected.
GET IT?????????????????
[ QUOTE=edthecynic;3214976]As was pointed out and highlighted so no one, not even you could miss, that confirmation of the accuracy of the ground station data and the models after the errors in the UAH data were corrected came from denier Christy himself.Don't you deniers ever get tired of lying?????
The ONLY thing from Connolley is the chart, which you can't rebut nor any of the other information I posted, so you get some non-scientific right wing whacko hack site to attack the man personally and you ignore everything else!
So here is a link to a paper co-authored by John Christy where he admits that when his and Spencer's errors are corrected, there is no discrepancy between Troposphere temps and surface temps:
Are you now going to attack Christy for admitting the truth you can't accept or rebut????
http://www.climatescience.gov/Librar...al-execsum.pdf
Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming
near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to
challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human induced global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial
global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde
data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant
discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and
radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets
have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies. __________________
unfucking real! that is your proof??????? did you even read it? its a feel good kumbaya article about how climate models aren't as out of whack as they used to be. not totally inconsistent with data at all times and at all altitudes. thats five minutes out of my life that I can never get back.
that had zero to do with what you claimed
It clearly says Spencer and Christy's UAH data was what was out of whack and the models, the RSS and ground station data was accurate all along, never out of whack, but as a denier you got it completely backwards. No surprise there.
Just to repeat it so you get it this time, it was the UAH satellite data that deniers were using that was out of whack and now is not "as out of whack as it used to be" since Christy and Spencer's errors were corrected.
GET IT?????????????????
Hard sciences aren't remotely like social science, kids.
There is a RIGHT ANSWER in hard science like there never is in social science.
I mean I know its fun to debate these issues, but it's pointless, too.
No amount of political pressure is going to change the facts in this case.
In the case of global climate change, it either is or is not true.
In the case of if global climate change is happening it is either true or it is not that mankind has played a role in that.
Polls don't matter, and our opinions don't matter, either.
And since nobody here is really qualified to evaluate the worth of these studies?
Well...what the point of taking what any of you say seriously?
As to longer term global climate?
I', still of the opinion that even if we have the data and it is 100% accurate, we still cannot predict what the outcome of the climate will be.
Yeah that's right, folks.
Science isn't going to be able to tell us jackshit about what it all will mean, not even if every measurement is right.
The system is way too complex for us to model.
.............they can crow all they want. Cap and Trade is fcukked.........because people are trying to survive.
Hard sciences aren't remotely like social science, kids.
There is a RIGHT ANSWER in hard science like there never is in social science.
I mean I know its fun to debate these issues, but it's pointless, too.
No amount of political pressure is going to change the facts in this case.
In the case of global climate change, it either is or is not true.
In the case of if global climate change is happening it is either true or it is not that mankind has played a role in that.
Polls don't matter, and our opinions don't matter, either.
And since nobody here is really qualified to evaluate the worth of these studies?
Well...what the point of taking what any of you say seriously?
As to longer term global climate?
I', still of the opinion that even if we have the data and it is 100% accurate, we still cannot predict what the outcome of the climate will be.
Yeah that's right, folks.
Science isn't going to be able to tell us jackshit about what it all will mean, not even if every measurement is right.
The system is way too complex for us to model.
No asshole.........actually, opinions and polls have EVERYTHING to do with it. EVERYTHING.............in fact, its the only thing that is important.
Nobody cares dick about the "global warming" problem anymore. Why? Because people now know that taking the road to a green ecomomy means they get their asses taxed to shit. So........the "science" doesnt mean dick. Of course, assholes who dont own anything , have no kids and no real responsiblities dont have to give a shit about their electric bills doubling or having to take the hit for companies moving overseas due to brainless regulations. Most of the FAITHERS in here have no real responsiblities...........its easy to view the world through rose colored, idealistic jarhead glasses. Especially the young asshole FAITHERS............nobody but nobody cares about their opinion. They dont know shit about shit about real life. They worry about paying a fcukkking rent check and a car payment........maybe some school loan payments. Dickheads go out and proudly purchase dangerous CFL bulbs to be able to beat their chest and fall into the PC march.
fcukking idealistic morons
Id love........just love to know how many of the fcukking FAITHERS own LCD TV's and own fancy cell phones. How about...........ALL OF THEM.
They can..........and are scratching.............while I laugh my balls off with their efforts that are like trying to knock down a brick wall with some spit!!
I agree with some of what you guys say that this cant take more then 20 percent of our energy needs, but it appears to be growing to that. So the green movement appears to be getting some of what they went. I believe that nuclear, wind, sun, hydro should be used. Would you agree that we should use this to power our nation?
