re: 4thWarmest June on Record

quote:

---

First, the data is being compared to phantom weather stations.

---

quote:

---

B) Its comparing only satelite data.

---

quote:

---

All previous weather station data has been 'adjusted' to be in line with the more questionable satelite data.

---

quote:

---

You're probably confused about the difference between global and local temperature. Its OK - its quite common amongst denialists. My recommendation would be to find another hobby. Knitting perhaps. Seriously, leave science to the grown-ups.

---

.....spoken like a true liberal progressive democrat...You all are not smart enough to run your own lives and make your own decisions....so leave all of that to us smart people...

quote:

---

First, the data is being compared to phantom weather stations. Those are stations that have gone offline due to urban sprawl, but someone continues to input an estimate so their computer models can continue to use the same age old formula

---

They aren't really "phantom" stations. They are just adjusting the weights of the remaining stations to keep the sample rate as a function of locality as constant as possible.

E.g.:
If you've got two thermometers in city A and two in city B, and city A is usually 10 degrees colder than city B - and you remove one of the thermometers from city A, all of a sudden you get a 2.5 degree increase in average measured temperature without the physical reality changing at all. You've got to double the weight on the one thermometer left in A if you want to reflect reality.

quote:

---

Quatro) The warmest month and largest extent of sea ice, evah, is a paradox.

---

That's actually not true.

quote:

---

Temperature data at stations that have the Maximum/Minimum Temperature System (MMTS) are adjusted for the bias introduced when the liquid-in-glass thermometers were replaced with the MMTS

---

And? Are you suggesting we shouldn't adjust measurements for known instrument biases? That would be kinda - dumb - wouldn't it?

quote:

---

The final adjustment is for an urban warming bias which uses the regression approach

---

And you would prefer if the urban heat island effect was allowed to distort the data?

quote:

---

From your friends at NOAA .gov. I mean, they aint even try to hide it

---

Of course they aren't. That's how science is done.

I'm scratching my head trying to figure out - are you seriously this stupid? Or are you just playing Devil's advocate?

quote:

---

And it's becoming "abundantly obvious" that a lot of GW fanatics aren't smart enough to realize that going AUTHORITARIAN COMMIE...won't change the Global climate one whit.

But if you really want to see a grand effect on the environment...then just crash the Global economic mechanism that humans now depend on for basic goods and service...and watch a real sh%&^&*storm. Major dieoff. Environmental problem solved.

Hell, what's fixing to start in the ME will probably cloud this place up and cool it off for years.

---

I'm not really seeing what any of that has to do with the science.

quote:

---

I'm not really seeing what any of that has to do with the science.

---

There is nothing, that ain't 'Science', Tuba.

As one who worships Nature and Beauty, (as Divine 'art'), my point is this: given the current technological/societal dynamic, imposing draconian economic restrictions on PRODUCTIVE Nations...and sending that money to Third World Nations (dictators, despots, tyrants, yahoos, etc.) WILL NOT change the profound momentum of inevitable environmental change.

What MAY, will be the extraordinary high tech being developed and enabled by PRODUCTIVE and vibrant economic engines, that can help us deal with that change. Kill those engines, by saddling human productivity and motivation with Marxist ideology... and we kill the hope for solutions.

Most of these ominous weather predictions are long term; do they/you totally factor out any (natural) effects such as a real and high probability of major seismic influence? Asteroids? Biological population affects like super bacteria/viruses? World War III?

IMV, most Greens are single-mindedly focused, and they have been co-opted by Marxist Ideologues, which in the long term will be HARMFUL to Environmental causes.

This environmental ship has sailed. The best hope we have to alter the Environment forward toward a recovery (outside of a major and calamitous population reduction/effect), is to focus on a vibrant economy which enables the development of high tech solutions.

quote:

---

This environmental ship has sailed. The best hope we have to alter the Environment forward toward a recovery (outside of a major and calamitous population reduction/effect), is to focus on a vibrant economy which enables the development of high tech solutions.

---

Very nice sir, very nice.

And we already see evidence of better technologies giving us cleaner water and air.

The Earth is going to continue to change, and man needs to evolve and change with it.

quote:

---

They are just adjusting the weights of the remaining stations to keep the sample rate as a function of locality as constant as possible. n

---

No. No they are not

Again, directly from NOAA:

quote:

---

The physical number of weather stations has shrunk as modern technology improved and some of the older outposts were no longer accessible in real time. NOAA is using fewer weather stations to measure surface temperature around the globe — from 6,000 to less than 1,500. However, over time, the data record for surface temperatures has actually grown, thanks to the digitization of historical books and logs.

---

And before you come up with some foolish retort . . .

quote:

---

The most important difference in the U.S. temperature record occurred with the systematic change in observing times from the afternoon (when it is warm) to morning (when it is cooler). This shift has resulted in a well-documented and increasing cool discrepancy over the last several decades and is addressed by applying a correction to the data.

---

Theres the fork in them right there! They purposely began taking readings in the morning, whereas historically those readings were done in the afternoons!!!!

Of course, the globe warms from the morning to the afternoons. Whether man is on the planet or not.

You silly rabbit. Trix are for kids

quote:

---

record goes back to 1979

---

seems legit. Let's base our entire understanding of our planet's climate on 25 years of temperature data for a single region of the planet.

quote:

---

The most important difference in the U.S. temperature record occurred with the systematic change in observing times from the afternoon (when it is warm) to morning (when it is cooler). This shift has resulted in a well-documented and increasing cool discrepancy over the last several decades and is addressed by applying a correction to the data.


Theres the fork in them right there! They purposely began taking readings in the morning, whereas historically those readings were done in the afternoons!!!!

---

mkay. Did you read the bold faced part in your own quote? The difference is accounted for. You appear to be suggesting that they should not account for this difference.


Are you at all aware that raw data is basically useless in almost every area of science? If we want to measure temperature - and not the biases inherent in our instruments and observation methodology -we need to account for those biases.

quote:

---

seems legit. Let's base our entire understanding of our planet's climate on 25 years of temperature data for a single region of the planet.

---

Why? We've got 800,000 years of ice core data.