Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[flacaltenn]

The dip at 2012 is deeper than the dip at 2008. And the dip at late 2013 doesn't even APPEAR in your chart. But MORE IMPORTANTLY -- there's no obvious trend line from 2009 to 2014 as it shows in your chart.

I suggest you check the DETAILS of what they are calling Satellite SST data.

As to DETAILS: What does "60N-60S" in that graph tell you?

And what am I supposed to guess is included in yours WITHOUT any notes whatsoever?

Think man -- how much "ship intake measurements do they HAVE from the poles"? In fact, last time I checked, there were less than a dozen buoys in the Arctic circle and 1/2 of them weren't functioning correctly..

Did someone tell you all this was easy?? BTW -- NOAA oftens results to satellite data for the poles WHEN it serves their purposes. Because that's the most reliable source of that data.

I'll find the entire global plot of the satellite SST... It will NOT agree with your graph or the new "devolved" NOAA methodology...

 

[jc456]

how you figure? Hot flames projecting outward, radiation projected outward due to combustion gases, It's why you see explosions off the surface, right?

Hot flames projecting outward, radiation projected outward due to combustion gases,

Combustion? No.

Never heard of solar flares? Hmmmmmmm

Solar flares......not combustion.

What do you suppose causes a flare? A photon? LOL

Stanford SOLAR Center -- Ask A Solar Physicist FAQs - Answer


Not combustion.......

from your link:
"The short answer is that we don't know exactly."

So if they don't know, then you don't know. so you have no idea. They claim stored magnetic energy that does what? hmmmm who knows, maybe combustion like an engine firing from that stored energy. but you don't know.

 

[Olde Europe]

And what am I supposed to guess is included in yours WITHOUT any notes whatsoever?

Immediately before the graph I included a link to the carbonbrief.org site where I found the picture. The site also discusses the data and their validity, and comes with a link to Karl's NOAA paper. Here's the link, again.

In an article in today’s Mail on Sunday, David Rose makes the extraordinary claim that “world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data”, accusing the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of manipulating the data to show more warming in a 2015 study by Tom Karl and coauthors.

What he fails to mention is that the new NOAA results have been validated by independent data from satellites, buoys and Argo floats and that many other independent groups, including Berkeley Earth and the UK’s Met Office Hadley Centre, get effectively the same results.​

 

[flacaltenn]

And what am I supposed to guess is included in yours WITHOUT any notes whatsoever?

Immediately before the graph I included a link to the carbonbrief.org site where I found the picture. The site also discusses the data and their validity, and comes with a link to Karl's NOAA paper. Here's the link, again.

In an article in today’s Mail on Sunday, David Rose makes the extraordinary claim that “world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data”, accusing the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of manipulating the data to show more warming in a 2015 study by Tom Karl and coauthors.

What he fails to mention is that the new NOAA results have been validated by independent data from satellites, buoys and Argo floats and that many other independent groups, including Berkeley Earth and the UK’s Met Office Hadley Centre, get effectively the same results.​

Of course they get the same results. Because ALL OF THOSE are BUILT on the NOAA data. You think Berkeley Earth has a private secret stash of "ship intake records" ???? Even UK Met uses the NOAA data as a starting point for Global studies.

 

[Olde Europe]

Of course they get the same results. Because ALL OF THOSE are BUILT on the NOAA data. You think Berkeley Earth has a private secret stash of "ship intake records" ???? Even UK Met uses the NOAA data as a starting point for Global studies.

The Karl study was a re-analysis, adjusting for ship intake vs. buoy measurements. Others may have analyzed the same data, apparently arriving independently at the same or very similar corrections, yielding very similar results. That would be surprising had the NOAA somehow fudged it, as you seemed to imply. Hence, others arriving at the same results refutes your accusation:

YET -- NOAA's Karl found a loophole in giving those more flaky measurements EQUAL WEIGHT to the buoys. It was ALWAYS about finding another 0.06degC to set new records. Not about honest or accurate science.

 

[Wuwei]

In fact, NOAA and Trenberth bumped heads on exactly HOW that thin skin surface from back radiation ever made it to 700 meters deep.

I don't understand why people keep saying that. Only the sun can heat the ocean. Back-radiation can't. The LW back-radiation keeps the ocean LW radiation loss in check to a large extent.

That comment was really about the mystery of how you distribute heat from a thin skin at the surface less than a mmeter deep into the zones 700 or 2000 meters below. Not really about how the heat got into the skin layer. But clearly, you need a fair amount of surface mixing to even PRESERVE the heat in that layer. Even NOAA was not buying the "surface mixing" argument from the authors. You'd probably get more more warming at depth from just the 1degC increase in air temp at the surface than from a 1mm layer of slightly hotter water.

And in fact, you're correct. The NET (non-solar) radiative transfer to sky always wins. It's there day and night. Whether it's land or ocean. I'm pretty sure only a higher "sky temperature" can change that math.

Consider only the radiation part of the ocean surface. Heat from back-radiation is simply not distributed from a mm thin skin at the surface to hundreds of meters below. The top mm ocean surface is cooled, not heated, because radiation energy is escaping from that top mm by Stefan-Boltzman radiation. Back-radiation does not heat anything. It simply slows the rate of (cooling) outward radiation from the surface.

 

[jc456]

In fact, NOAA and Trenberth bumped heads on exactly HOW that thin skin surface from back radiation ever made it to 700 meters deep.

I don't understand why people keep saying that. Only the sun can heat the ocean. Back-radiation can't. The LW back-radiation keeps the ocean LW radiation loss in check to a large extent.

That comment was really about the mystery of how you distribute heat from a thin skin at the surface less than a mmeter deep into the zones 700 or 2000 meters below. Not really about how the heat got into the skin layer. But clearly, you need a fair amount of surface mixing to even PRESERVE the heat in that layer. Even NOAA was not buying the "surface mixing" argument from the authors. You'd probably get more more warming at depth from just the 1degC increase in air temp at the surface than from a 1mm layer of slightly hotter water.

And in fact, you're correct. The NET (non-solar) radiative transfer to sky always wins. It's there day and night. Whether it's land or ocean. I'm pretty sure only a higher "sky temperature" can change that math.

Consider only the radiation part of the ocean surface. Heat from back-radiation is simply not distributed from a mm thin skin at the surface to hundreds of meters below. The top mm ocean surface is cooled, not heated, because radiation energy is escaping from that top mm by Stefan-Boltzman radiation. Back-radiation does not heat anything. It simply slows the rate of (cooling) outward radiation from the surface.

exactly how does your back radiation slow radiation coming from the surface? have you ever explained that?

 

[flacaltenn]

In fact, NOAA and Trenberth bumped heads on exactly HOW that thin skin surface from back radiation ever made it to 700 meters deep.

I don't understand why people keep saying that. Only the sun can heat the ocean. Back-radiation can't. The LW back-radiation keeps the ocean LW radiation loss in check to a large extent.

That comment was really about the mystery of how you distribute heat from a thin skin at the surface less than a mmeter deep into the zones 700 or 2000 meters below. Not really about how the heat got into the skin layer. But clearly, you need a fair amount of surface mixing to even PRESERVE the heat in that layer. Even NOAA was not buying the "surface mixing" argument from the authors. You'd probably get more more warming at depth from just the 1degC increase in air temp at the surface than from a 1mm layer of slightly hotter water.

And in fact, you're correct. The NET (non-solar) radiative transfer to sky always wins. It's there day and night. Whether it's land or ocean. I'm pretty sure only a higher "sky temperature" can change that math.

Consider only the radiation part of the ocean surface. Heat from back-radiation is simply not distributed from a mm thin skin at the surface to hundreds of meters below. The top mm ocean surface is cooled, not heated, because radiation energy is escaping from that top mm by Stefan-Boltzman radiation. Back-radiation does not heat anything. It simply slows the rate of (cooling) outward radiation from the surface.

Absolutely.. And arguably a "warmer sky" COULD significantly affect ocean storage. But you still need the mechanism of getting that warming to the deeper ocean. Can we just say it's probably equally likely that the warming is conduction from the surface air as it is radiative energy in that thin skin? Dunno.. That's where I stopped asking questions..

 

[flacaltenn]

In fact, NOAA and Trenberth bumped heads on exactly HOW that thin skin surface from back radiation ever made it to 700 meters deep.

I don't understand why people keep saying that. Only the sun can heat the ocean. Back-radiation can't. The LW back-radiation keeps the ocean LW radiation loss in check to a large extent.

That comment was really about the mystery of how you distribute heat from a thin skin at the surface less than a mmeter deep into the zones 700 or 2000 meters below. Not really about how the heat got into the skin layer. But clearly, you need a fair amount of surface mixing to even PRESERVE the heat in that layer. Even NOAA was not buying the "surface mixing" argument from the authors. You'd probably get more more warming at depth from just the 1degC increase in air temp at the surface than from a 1mm layer of slightly hotter water.

And in fact, you're correct. The NET (non-solar) radiative transfer to sky always wins. It's there day and night. Whether it's land or ocean. I'm pretty sure only a higher "sky temperature" can change that math.

Consider only the radiation part of the ocean surface. Heat from back-radiation is simply not distributed from a mm thin skin at the surface to hundreds of meters below. The top mm ocean surface is cooled, not heated, because radiation energy is escaping from that top mm by Stefan-Boltzman radiation. Back-radiation does not heat anything. It simply slows the rate of (cooling) outward radiation from the surface.

exactly how does your back radiation slow radiation coming from the surface? have you ever explained that?

Too many times and to YOU in particular. It's actually simple addition and subtraction. Some radiative energy comes from the sky and goes to ground and EVEN MORE goes up to space. 24 hours a day.. Subtract those 2 to get the NET loss to the sky. The Sky always wins and COOLS the planet. No law of physics is ever harmed in the making of these basic scientific observations.. Nothing gets "slowed down". It's as simple as tossing marbles back and forth. Whoever has the MOST HEAT and tosses the most marbles loses heat energy.


Give it up JC -- that was the last time you'll get it from me.

 

[jc456]

In fact, NOAA and Trenberth bumped heads on exactly HOW that thin skin surface from back radiation ever made it to 700 meters deep.

I don't understand why people keep saying that. Only the sun can heat the ocean. Back-radiation can't. The LW back-radiation keeps the ocean LW radiation loss in check to a large extent.

That comment was really about the mystery of how you distribute heat from a thin skin at the surface less than a mmeter deep into the zones 700 or 2000 meters below. Not really about how the heat got into the skin layer. But clearly, you need a fair amount of surface mixing to even PRESERVE the heat in that layer. Even NOAA was not buying the "surface mixing" argument from the authors. You'd probably get more more warming at depth from just the 1degC increase in air temp at the surface than from a 1mm layer of slightly hotter water.

And in fact, you're correct. The NET (non-solar) radiative transfer to sky always wins. It's there day and night. Whether it's land or ocean. I'm pretty sure only a higher "sky temperature" can change that math.

Consider only the radiation part of the ocean surface. Heat from back-radiation is simply not distributed from a mm thin skin at the surface to hundreds of meters below. The top mm ocean surface is cooled, not heated, because radiation energy is escaping from that top mm by Stefan-Boltzman radiation. Back-radiation does not heat anything. It simply slows the rate of (cooling) outward radiation from the surface.

exactly how does your back radiation slow radiation coming from the surface? have you ever explained that?

Too many times and to YOU in particular. It's actually simple addition and subtraction. Some radiative energy comes from the sky and goes to ground and EVEN MORE goes up to space. 24 hours a day.. Subtract those 2 to get the NET loss to the sky. The Sky always wins and COOLS the planet. No law of physics is ever harmed in the making of these basic scientific observations.. Nothing gets "slowed down". It's as simple as tossing marbles back and forth. Whoever has the MOST HEAT and tosses the most marbles loses heat energy.


Give it up JC -- that was the last time you'll get it from me.

I didn't ask for anything from you, so take your condescending tone up with someone else. there is no back radiation. and sir you can't prove it. sorry, you fail at every attempt. but please hear me out, I didn't ask you sht.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Hot flames projecting outward, radiation projected outward due to combustion gases,

Combustion? No.

Never heard of solar flares? Hmmmmmmm

Solar flares......not combustion.

What do you suppose causes a flare? A photon? LOL

Stanford SOLAR Center -- Ask A Solar Physicist FAQs - Answer


Not combustion.......

from your link:
"The short answer is that we don't know exactly."

So if they don't know, then you don't know. so you have no idea. They claim stored magnetic energy that does what? hmmmm who knows, maybe combustion like an engine firing from that stored energy. but you don't know.

So if they don't know, then you don't know. so you have no idea

I know it's not combustion.

 

[jc456]

Never heard of solar flares? Hmmmmmmm

Solar flares......not combustion.

What do you suppose causes a flare? A photon? LOL

Stanford SOLAR Center -- Ask A Solar Physicist FAQs - Answer


Not combustion.......

from your link:
"The short answer is that we don't know exactly."

So if they don't know, then you don't know. so you have no idea. They claim stored magnetic energy that does what? hmmmm who knows, maybe combustion like an engine firing from that stored energy. but you don't know.

So if they don't know, then you don't know. so you have no idea

I know it's not combustion.

they don't know but you do. too funny bubba. too funny.

 

[jc456]

In fact, NOAA and Trenberth bumped heads on exactly HOW that thin skin surface from back radiation ever made it to 700 meters deep.

I don't understand why people keep saying that. Only the sun can heat the ocean. Back-radiation can't. The LW back-radiation keeps the ocean LW radiation loss in check to a large extent.

That comment was really about the mystery of how you distribute heat from a thin skin at the surface less than a mmeter deep into the zones 700 or 2000 meters below. Not really about how the heat got into the skin layer. But clearly, you need a fair amount of surface mixing to even PRESERVE the heat in that layer. Even NOAA was not buying the "surface mixing" argument from the authors. You'd probably get more more warming at depth from just the 1degC increase in air temp at the surface than from a 1mm layer of slightly hotter water.

And in fact, you're correct. The NET (non-solar) radiative transfer to sky always wins. It's there day and night. Whether it's land or ocean. I'm pretty sure only a higher "sky temperature" can change that math.

Consider only the radiation part of the ocean surface. Heat from back-radiation is simply not distributed from a mm thin skin at the surface to hundreds of meters below. The top mm ocean surface is cooled, not heated, because radiation energy is escaping from that top mm by Stefan-Boltzman radiation. Back-radiation does not heat anything. It simply slows the rate of (cooling) outward radiation from the surface.

BTW, just post up that hot spot in the atmosphere.

 

[Olde Europe]

Back-radiation does not heat anything. It simply slows the rate of (cooling) outward radiation from the surface.

Of course, back radiation heats any surface that absorbs it, in this case the ocean's "skin". This warming of the skin is crucial. The top ocean layer usually has a very steep temperature gradient, and the warming of the top layer reduces the steepness of that gradient. All else equal, the steeper the gradient, the more energy flows along it, and thus the LWIR radiation reduces the flow of heat from the ocean to the atmosphere. Or so would be my understanding.

Ah, for a less simplistic explanation.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Solar flares......not combustion.

What do you suppose causes a flare? A photon? LOL

Stanford SOLAR Center -- Ask A Solar Physicist FAQs - Answer


Not combustion.......

from your link:
"The short answer is that we don't know exactly."

So if they don't know, then you don't know. so you have no idea. They claim stored magnetic energy that does what? hmmmm who knows, maybe combustion like an engine firing from that stored energy. but you don't know.

So if they don't know, then you don't know. so you have no idea

I know it's not combustion.

they don't know but you do. too funny bubba. too funny.

They know it's not combustion.

 

[Wuwei]

Back-radiation does not heat anything. It simply slows the rate of (cooling) outward radiation from the surface.

Of course, back radiation heats any surface that absorbs it, in this case the ocean's "skin". This warming of the skin is crucial. The top ocean layer usually has a very steep temperature gradient, and the warming of the top layer reduces the steepness of that gradient. All else equal, the steeper the gradient, the more energy flows along it, and thus the LWIR radiation reduces the flow of heat from the ocean to the atmosphere. Or so would be my understanding.

Ah, for a less simplistic explanation.

The "less simplistic explanation" makes sense to me. Figure 3 seems to stretch the scale for the top skin for clarity. What I was arguing against is that back radiation does not directly warm anything below the 1 mm skin. (Some people in the past argued that the deeper part of the ocean was able to get warmed directly by back radiation by the roiling of the ocean.)

I was looking at it more macroscopically, whereas the article is more microscopic. If you ignore the details of the top mm you can think of the effect as being only a cutting of heat loss at the surface.

.

 

[polarbear]

nice photo, doesn't prove anything however. light is light and you have no idea what is causing any of it. photons would be the last thing to bank on.

nice photo, doesn't prove anything however.

It shows photons from the cooler surface traveled toward the hotter corona.

the pictures shows light wavelengths. you have no idea how they are where there at. you said so.

the pictures shows light wavelenths.

The picture has photons all over it.

you have no idea how they are where there at.

They're there.

you said so.

I said cooler surface photons move toward the hotter corona.
The picture is proof.

Tell me what you are proving by saying "cooler surface photons move towards the hotter corona"?
Are you trying to say that the hotter corona is first absorbing these photons and then emitting them...and that is supposed to prove that a hotter body does absorb energy from the cooler one with the photons of the cooler one?
See that tells me that a typical warmer has no clue whatsoever what is going on and what is required for light (=photons) of a certain wavelength to be absorbed.
To absorb an em wave you need a resonator that can resonate at the right frequency in order to be able to absorb it.
The sun`s corona is an ionized plasma that is lacking the electrons in the orbitals that would absorb the photons you claim were first absorbed and then re-emitted by the corona.
Like hell they are absorbed, they radiate right through the corona because the resonator that would get pumped by this lower energy radiation is not encountered by these particular photons.
In spectroscopic analysis this is a very common problem.
Like for example determining the ppm Ca by atomic absorption spectroscopy.
When you aspirate the solution with Ca in it into the atomizer & the air acetylene flame in the optical path most of the light emitted by the hollow cathode radiation source goes right through it without being absorbed...because the Ca was ionized and that is why you will have to add Lithium Chloride to suppress the Calcium ionization....
You need the electrons in the resonant orbitals to be in the ground state or else you absorb sweet f-ck all from the radiation that is supposed to be absorbed.
I taught that stuff and the people I taught totally got that, no problem.
So what is your problem ?

Tell me what you are proving by saying "cooler surface photons move towards the hotter corona"?

SSDD, JC456 and Billy_Bob have all claimed that back radiation does not exist because if photons emitted by cooler matter hit warmer matter that would be a violation of the 2nd Law, so photons CANNOT do that.

Are you trying to say that the hotter corona is first absorbing these photons and then emitting them

Nope. I'm saying photons are not restricted in their direction of travel based on the temperature of matter in their path.

See that tells me that a typical warmer

I'm an anti-warmer, I'm just sick of the idiocy I've seen from SSDD.

Like hell they are absorbed, they radiate right through the corona

YES! And that shows the error of SSDD's claim. Thanks!

I owe you an apology then. But I still don`t think that SSDD said that photons photons "can`t hit"...whatever it is they are supposed to be "hitting".
Let`s get rid of that word "hitting", because photons don`t do that, they are not particles.
The only thing they have in common with particles that have a mass is a momentum...but that is an angular momentum which gives you the phase vector of the em wave. You can`t express that in a quantity of work it can perform as in (mass* velocity^2)/2 for a mass at a known speed.
Photons do not perform work just because they have a known energy quantum, they have to be absorbed and then transfer the energy to the absorber where the energy has to reside.
If the resonant electron orbital which has absorbed that photon falls right back to the ground state re-emitting the same em wave(length) it just absorbed then no effective energy has been transfered.
There are lots of things that are transparent to em, especially in the gaseous phase and that em frequency is therefore not absorbed...meaning the em at that particular wavelength dos not transfer energy to that material within that band-pass.
A black body is an entirely different story, because it can resonate and absorb at any frequency and does not reflect regardless of the angle of incidence.
But then again the black body equations do not assume a mass for the absorber, therefore you can not specify how many watt seconds per mass was absorbed...which is what you need to do a meaningful energy balance &/or budget.
Saying that the water temperature has gone up by 1 deg (if water was the material) tells you absolutely nothing how many cals, btus watt seconds or joules of absorbed energy that represents unless you know the mass.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

nice photo, doesn't prove anything however.

It shows photons from the cooler surface traveled toward the hotter corona.

the pictures shows light wavelengths. you have no idea how they are where there at. you said so.

the pictures shows light wavelenths.

The picture has photons all over it.

you have no idea how they are where there at.

They're there.

you said so.

I said cooler surface photons move toward the hotter corona.
The picture is proof.

Tell me what you are proving by saying "cooler surface photons move towards the hotter corona"?
Are you trying to say that the hotter corona is first absorbing these photons and then emitting them...and that is supposed to prove that a hotter body does absorb energy from the cooler one with the photons of the cooler one?
See that tells me that a typical warmer has no clue whatsoever what is going on and what is required for light (=photons) of a certain wavelength to be absorbed.
To absorb an em wave you need a resonator that can resonate at the right frequency in order to be able to absorb it.
The sun`s corona is an ionized plasma that is lacking the electrons in the orbitals that would absorb the photons you claim were first absorbed and then re-emitted by the corona.
Like hell they are absorbed, they radiate right through the corona because the resonator that would get pumped by this lower energy radiation is not encountered by these particular photons.
In spectroscopic analysis this is a very common problem.
Like for example determining the ppm Ca by atomic absorption spectroscopy.
When you aspirate the solution with Ca in it into the atomizer & the air acetylene flame in the optical path most of the light emitted by the hollow cathode radiation source goes right through it without being absorbed...because the Ca was ionized and that is why you will have to add Lithium Chloride to suppress the Calcium ionization....
You need the electrons in the resonant orbitals to be in the ground state or else you absorb sweet f-ck all from the radiation that is supposed to be absorbed.
I taught that stuff and the people I taught totally got that, no problem.
So what is your problem ?

Tell me what you are proving by saying "cooler surface photons move towards the hotter corona"?

SSDD, JC456 and Billy_Bob have all claimed that back radiation does not exist because if photons emitted by cooler matter hit warmer matter that would be a violation of the 2nd Law, so photons CANNOT do that.

Are you trying to say that the hotter corona is first absorbing these photons and then emitting them

Nope. I'm saying photons are not restricted in their direction of travel based on the temperature of matter in their path.

See that tells me that a typical warmer

I'm an anti-warmer, I'm just sick of the idiocy I've seen from SSDD.

Like hell they are absorbed, they radiate right through the corona

YES! And that shows the error of SSDD's claim. Thanks!

I owe you an apology then. But I still don`t think that SSDD said that photons photons "can`t hit"...whatever it is they are supposed to be "hitting".
Let`s get rid of that word "hitting", because photons don`t do that, they are not particles.
The only thing they have in common with particles that have a mass is a momentum...but that is an angular momentum which gives you the phase vector of the em wave. You can`t express that in a quantity of work it can perform as in (mass* velocity^2)/2 for a mass at a known speed.
Photons do not perform work just because they have a known energy quantum, they have to be absorbed and then transfer the energy to the absorber where the energy has to reside.
If the resonant electron orbital which has absorbed that photon falls right back to the ground state re-emitting the same em wave(length) it just absorbed then no effective energy has been transfered.
There are lots of things that are transparent to em, especially in the gaseous phase and that em frequency is therefore not absorbed...meaning the em at that particular wavelength dos not transfer energy to that material within that band-pass.
A black body is an entirely different story, because it can resonate and absorb at any frequency and does not reflect regardless of the angle of incidence.
But then again the black body equations do not assume a mass for the absorber, therefore you can not specify how many watt seconds per mass was absorbed...which is what you need to do a meaningful energy balance &/or budget.
Saying that the water temperature has gone up by 1 deg (if water was the material) tells you absolutely nothing how many cals, btus watt seconds or joules of absorbed energy that represents unless you know the mass.

But I still don`t think that SSDD said that photons photons "can`t hit"...whatever it is they are supposed to be "hitting".

He not only said that, he claims that they can see across vast distances and far into the future to help them decide where they will travel.

 

[Crick]

Same Shit, lost another one.

 

[flacaltenn]

Of course they get the same results. Because ALL OF THOSE are BUILT on the NOAA data. You think Berkeley Earth has a private secret stash of "ship intake records" ???? Even UK Met uses the NOAA data as a starting point for Global studies.

The Karl study was a re-analysis, adjusting for ship intake vs. buoy measurements. Others may have analyzed the same data, apparently arriving independently at the same or very similar corrections, yielding very similar results. That would be surprising had the NOAA somehow fudged it, as you seemed to imply. Hence, others arriving at the same results refutes your accusation:

YET -- NOAA's Karl found a loophole in giving those more flaky measurements EQUAL WEIGHT to the buoys. It was ALWAYS about finding another 0.06degC to set new records. Not about honest or accurate science.

That's not true. The guy who DEVELOPED the data integrity and verification standards for that dept at NOAA is public with allegations that those standards were VIOLATED, he was OVERRIDDEN, and the work was basically as a result NOT REPRODUCIBLE. You need the link? I'm busy. But I never lie on this board..