Remember me
▼ Content

July 2020: the second warmest July on Record.


July 2020: the second warmest July on Record.13-08-2020 22:47
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(304)
See https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/ytd/7/1880-2020

July 2020 at 0.92C warmer than the 20th Century average and so was second only to July 2019.

YTD it was 2nd warmest on record, just behind 2016 And that during a neutral ENSO phase! Remember 2016 was the strongest El Nino since the 1998 one and yet 2020 is rivaling it!

Still a neutral phase for El Nino/La Nina but with a La Nina possibly forming in the autumn. See https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf

If you have any questions about the data or the analysis methods follow the useful links provided on the NOAA webpages.
13-08-2020 23:45
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1214)
What "data"?? All I see are made-up numbers that are utterly meaningless...

It is not possible to measure global temperature to any usable accuracy. We do not have enough thermometers to do so (amongst numerous other mathematical issues).
14-08-2020 03:58
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(575)
Plus the data gets homogenised like Amberely Airforce base that showed a 1 deg C cooling since 1941 yet after smoothing shows a 1.76 deg Warming. go figure
14-08-2020 04:28
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7465)
DRKTS wrote:If you have any questions about the data or the analysis methods follow the useful links provided on the NOAA webpages.


You didn't post any data.

I love to watch you twist yourself into a pretzel trying to find spurious excuses to avoid simply posting your raw data ... and to squirm out from under providing a clear, unambiguous definition of Climate. You clearly don't have any valid raw data and you don't have any unambiguous definition of a global climate.




A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-08-2020 05:04
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2403)
The part of all this, is that it's pretty well understood, that we don't actually have any capacity to actually capture an accurate a complete global temperature, global CO2 level, or have much in the way of actual historic data. Basically, it's take what little we got to work with, declare it a standard, and try to show how it's changing. Even the IPCC will tell us that what happens in on specific locations, that doesn't conform, doesn't really matter, since they are looking at the entire planet, over long periods of time. But they refuse to admit, that the same dismissive argument, applies, since best case, they can only look at 20% or less of the planet, at ant particular period of time. There s a lot of things about life, and this planet, that we don't understand, and certainly have no control over. It's never stopped people in the past from declaring understanding of a problem, and having a handy solution.

Drought has been such a problem, and there have been many solutions, since recorded history, on how to make it rain. We've never actually ever made it rain on demand, but we have figured out how to manage or water resources better on the ground. Well, except 'Let it Burn' California... Earthquakes and volcanoes... Use to be common practice to shove people into volcanoes, maybe to get a closer look?

The IPCC, doesn't even have a lot of confidence in their own work. Climate activist also use the argument that, even if doesn't go apocalyptic, least we will have a cleaner, 'greener', healthier planet. Where is the sense of responsibility, accountability, consequences? These people are pretty full of themselves, admitting they are clueless, and don't care. It makes absolutely no difference if they are right or wrong about global warming, only that we cover the entire surface with windmills and solar panels.

The reality, we can't control where or when it rains. We can control the planet temperature. There is no thermostat, like in the office or lab. We have absolutely zero control over the planet. What we can do, is manage how we use the resources available, to minimize the impact of what ever the planet, naturally throws at us. If we are getting warmer, we will adapt accordingly, least many of use, and we will survive as a species. If we are trending toward a long period of cooling, we can adapt to that too, plenty of oil and coal to burn for heat. Fighting the planet has never turned out well, for many of those who have tried in the past. Those that survive, are those willing to accept that the environment constantly changes, and figure out how to use the available resources to adapt.
14-08-2020 06:05
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(304)
gfm7175 wrote:
What "data"?? All I see are made-up numbers that are utterly meaningless...

It is not possible to measure global temperature to any usable accuracy. We do not have enough thermometers to do so (amongst numerous other mathematical issues).


I guess you have not bothered to read the papers that describe the data and or analysis methods.

You need to provide proof of your assertion, I see none
14-08-2020 06:06
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(304)
duncan61 wrote:
Plus the data gets homogenised like Amberely Airforce base that showed a 1 deg C cooling since 1941 yet after smoothing shows a 1.76 deg Warming. go figure


Did you read the paper describing the results? No! So you have no basis for that assertion
14-08-2020 06:09
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(304)
IBdaMann wrote:
DRKTS wrote:If you have any questions about the data or the analysis methods follow the useful links provided on the NOAA webpages.


You didn't post any data.

I love to watch you twist yourself into a pretzel trying to find spurious excuses to avoid simply posting your raw data ... and to squirm out from under providing a clear, unambiguous definition of Climate. You clearly don't have any valid raw data and you don't have any unambiguous definition of a global climate.



Another irrelevant comment
14-08-2020 06:12
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(304)
HarveyH55 wrote:
The part of all this, is that it's pretty well understood, that we don't actually have any capacity to actually capture an accurate a complete global temperature, global CO2 level, or have much in the way of actual historic data. Basically, it's take what little we got to work with, declare it a standard, and try to show how it's changing. Even the IPCC will tell us that what happens in on specific locations, that doesn't conform, doesn't really matter, since they are looking at the entire planet, over long periods of time. But they refuse to admit, that the same dismissive argument, applies, since best case, they can only look at 20% or less of the planet, at ant particular period of time. There s a lot of things about life, and this planet, that we don't understand, and certainly have no control over. It's never stopped people in the past from declaring understanding of a problem, and having a handy solution.

Drought has been such a problem, and there have been many solutions, since recorded history, on how to make it rain. We've never actually ever made it rain on demand, but we have figured out how to manage or water resources better on the ground. Well, except 'Let it Burn' California... Earthquakes and volcanoes... Use to be common practice to shove people into volcanoes, maybe to get a closer look?

The IPCC, doesn't even have a lot of confidence in their own work. Climate activist also use the argument that, even if doesn't go apocalyptic, least we will have a cleaner, 'greener', healthier planet. Where is the sense of responsibility, accountability, consequences? These people are pretty full of themselves, admitting they are clueless, and don't care. It makes absolutely no difference if they are right or wrong about global warming, only that we cover the entire surface with windmills and solar panels.

The reality, we can't control where or when it rains. We can control the planet temperature. There is no thermostat, like in the office or lab. We have absolutely zero control over the planet. What we can do, is manage how we use the resources available, to minimize the impact of what ever the planet, naturally throws at us. If we are getting warmer, we will adapt accordingly, least many of use, and we will survive as a species. If we are trending toward a long period of cooling, we can adapt to that too, plenty of oil and coal to burn for heat. Fighting the planet has never turned out well, for many of those who have tried in the past. Those that survive, are those willing to accept that the environment constantly changes, and figure out how to use the available resources to adapt.


A series of unsupported assertions.

A debate is and exchange of arguments backed by real data. Not someone providing data and then he other side averring things that have no scientific basis whatsoever.
14-08-2020 10:38
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2403)
How many times to we really need to review extrapolated data, proxies, and analog data, to know it's all speculation and mathemagic? Repetition doesn't make it right, or any more acceptable. You can display the newly 'corrected' data, in as many colorful graphs and video simulations, but it's still not science. It's like putting the same crappy product, in a new package, and selling as new and improved, even though it was never changed.
14-08-2020 13:34
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(304)
HarveyH55 wrote:
How many times to we really need to review extrapolated data, proxies, and analog data, to know it's all speculation and mathemagic? Repetition doesn't make it right, or any more acceptable. You can display the newly 'corrected' data, in as many colorful graphs and video simulations, but it's still not science. It's like putting the same crappy product, in a new package, and selling as new and improved, even though it was never changed.


Its none of those things.

So, according to you, 10,000s of trained scientists versed in math, statistics, and familiar with the relevant scientific principles associated with weather and climate (atmospheric physics, oceanography, fluid dynamics, space physics, solar physics, etc) are wrong and you, an anonymous person apparently with no such qualifications (judging by some of the things you just said) posting on a blog, are right? How likely is that.

You all rely on a bunch of unsupported assertions based on the fossil fuel industry's propaganda and repeat them over and over, but as some wise person recently said "Repetition doesn't make it right, or any more acceptable."
14-08-2020 15:07
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7465)
DRKTS wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
DRKTS wrote:If you have any questions about the data or the analysis methods follow the useful links provided on the NOAA webpages.
You didn't post any data.
Another irrelevant comment


Thank you for going on the record as officially stating that you believe the most critical point to be irrelevant.

Your king is tipped. Let's do this again next month. I hope we can both just copy-paste and keep it short and sweet.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-08-2020 15:32
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7465)
DRKTS wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:How many times to we really need to review extrapolated data, proxies, and analog data, to know it's all speculation and mathemagic?
Its none of those things.

Yes, it's all of the things Harvey said ... and you just lied. You established this a few posts up by declaring actual raws data to be irrelevant. You can't get any clearer than that.

The only way Harvey could have possibly been more precise would have been to mention that you are lying straight up ... but Harvey is too polite.

But I'm not. I'll say it. You're a liar. You make it all up. You have no raw data because you find it irrelevant.


Oh joy! You are desperately reaching into your back pocket for a bullying tactic.
What are the Vegas odds that it's going to work? Let's find out ...

DRKTS wrote: So, according to you, 10,000s of trained scientists versed in math, statistics,

So, according to you, 10,000s of trained scientists versed in math, statistics and science felt an overwhelming urge to totally waste their time and to have their work summarily discarded by not publishing their raw data? So, according to you, 10,000s of trained scientists who know what is expected of them, decided instead to change careers and become science fiction authors?


DRKTS wrote: and familiar with the relevant scientific principles associated with weather and climate (atmospheric physics, oceanography, fluid dynamics, space physics, solar physics, etc) are wrong and you, an anonymous person apparently with no such qualifications (judging by some of the things you just said) posting on a blog, are right? How likely is that.

What are the Vegas odds that anyone is going to believe that you, an anonymous person apparently with no such qualifications (judging by some of the things you just said) posting on a blog, are actually 10,000s of scientists? You are just a know-nothing schmuck whose gullibility and naivete caused him to fall for the Global Warming scam whereby you totally believed promises that you would not only be made relevant in real life but also promises to transform you into a super-genius who will save the world! You should sue them.

You rely on a bunch of unsupported assumptions of a contradictory "global climate" and of fossils somehow being combustible ... and repeat them over and over, but as some wise person recently said "Repetition doesn't make it right, or any more acceptable."


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
Edited on 14-08-2020 15:36
14-08-2020 16:59
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1214)
DRKTS wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
What "data"?? All I see are made-up numbers that are utterly meaningless...

It is not possible to measure global temperature to any usable accuracy. We do not have enough thermometers to do so (amongst numerous other mathematical issues).


I guess you have not bothered to read the papers that describe the data and or analysis methods.

WHAT DATA???? There isn't any global temperature data... All that's been parroted is made-up numbers. Made-up numbers are not data.

For starters:

** Biasing factors were not eliminated from data selection (in this case, there are time and location biases).

** Variance was not declared/justified. I, like ITN, have noticed that temperature variants of as much as 20degF/mile are not uncommon (I go out hiking a lot, so I notice differences between, say, a hot paved parking lot and a cool breezy lake shore... or a hot open parking lot and a cool densely wooded/shaded forest). I use this knowledge to my advantage so that I go out hiking in a COOLER location if it happens to be a rather hot day...

** A margin of error was not calculated. Given how few thermometers we have available to us (even IF they were all uniformly spaced and simultaneously read), the margin of error would still be +- 131degF, as recorded temperatures have been as low as -128degF and as high as 134degF (aka, the limits of variance). Whether you use one thermometer or ten thousand thermometers, the margin of error remains unchanged. We simply do not have enough thermometers to bring the margin of error below that value...

DRKTS wrote:
You need to provide proof of your assertion, I see none

Regarding your assertion that the Earth is warming, YOU are the one making that claim, so it is up to YOU to support that claim... I need not do anything.

Regarding my assertion that it is not possible to measure global temperature within any usable accuracy, I have now provided you both the reasoning and the mathematics that support my assertion.


But keep twisting yourself into a pretzel; it's quite entertaining to watch you squirm...
Edited on 14-08-2020 17:15
14-08-2020 18:04
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7465)
gfm7175 wrote:WHAT DATA????

Don't hold your breath waiting for a valid dataset from DRATS. It's like the Manual says, "The Data" is rumored to be real and desperately believed to exist by Global Warming worshipers. DRATS is relying on the oft-repeated dogma amongst warmizombies that the mere mention of "The Data" is supposed to get you to shut up and OBEY. Didn't you catch DRATS' specific mention of "The Data"? Yes? Then what the he11 are you still questioning for? What are you, slow?

Yeah, he has no valid data. His only recourse, as you probably noticed, is to bully, as he tried with Harvey, by pretending to speak for "10,000s" of scientists who happen to be utter scientifically-illiterate morons as he describes them.

gfm7175 wrote:** A margin of error was not calculated.

More importantly, no target margin of error was determined. Researchers establish a target margin of error as the very first order of business; that is determined by the requirements of the project, i.e. the reason for the measuring in the first place. If the project's success hinges on knowing the earth's temperature to within four degrees Celsius then their target margin of error is +/-4C. This, in turn, determines the collection plan.

Has DRATS made any mention of the collection plan and subsequently the target margin of error driving the collection methodology? ... or are we supposed to believe the world's top scientists just randomly measure things, somehow planning to correct for their lack of planning and forethought by simply "regridding," "reweighting" and other number-fudging on their random measurements AFTERWARDS?

DRATS is a fraud. He is desperate for a online discussion forum whereby people think he is actually smart. He's a loser. He thinks science is a religion. He's a moron.



.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-08-2020 19:16
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2403)
DRKTS wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
How many times to we really need to review extrapolated data, proxies, and analog data, to know it's all speculation and mathemagic? Repetition doesn't make it right, or any more acceptable. You can display the newly 'corrected' data, in as many colorful graphs and video simulations, but it's still not science. It's like putting the same crappy product, in a new package, and selling as new and improved, even though it was never changed.


Its none of those things.

So, according to you, 10,000s of trained scientists versed in math, statistics, and familiar with the relevant scientific principles associated with weather and climate (atmospheric physics, oceanography, fluid dynamics, space physics, solar physics, etc) are wrong and you, an anonymous person apparently with no such qualifications (judging by some of the things you just said) posting on a blog, are right? How likely is that.

You all rely on a bunch of unsupported assertions based on the fossil fuel industry's propaganda and repeat them over and over, but as some wise person recently said "Repetition doesn't make it right, or any more acceptable."


Nope. I think they are applying what they learned, the tools available, to what little data the managed to scrape up. It's not ideal data, but the best the can get to work with. It's plausible speculation, works out on paper, and makes for a really cool 'video game', least for nerds. Who would want to get paid, to play with some of the best, most expensive tools? Or fly all over the world, first class, on private jets? Science, is a discipline of objectivity. It's not about what these scientist believe. It's a good paying job, and it's in a field they studied, and dedicated their career to. They do the job they are paid to do with the tools, and data provided. The outcome, doesn't matter, it's finding the answers that concerns them most.

The IPCC isn't science, and just uses any paper that gets produced, that supports their narrative. It's political, they do a lot of marketing, since they need to sell the idea, they can't actual prove. And, they need to continue being funded. Have you read any of the IPCC assessment reports? They lack conviction, and facts. They don't take a strong position on much of anything, other than man-made CO2 is the root of all evil, and needs to be stopped, regardless of cost. The more interesting, is the site hundreds of papers in each report. Some are free to view, others are behind a pay-wall, either by subscription, or per paper. I only read through the free papers, and less than impressed. Quite a few of those I read, had very little to do with climate, until you got down into the conclusions, and read more like a plea for further funding, an obligatory mention.

I don't consider myself an expert in any field, but do have a working understanding of quite a few. I know a data set is worthless, if you don't apply the same mathemagic, to all elements, equally. You can't get away with modifying only parts of the set. You can, for a shady marketing product. I know enough science, to understand that it's a search for understanding and knowledge. You don't have a predefined conclusion, an look for ways to achieve those specific results, you were paid for. You start off with an observation or idea, and design tests, record the results, and draw a conclusion, from what you learned. Doesn't matter if it turned out the way you hoped, or expected, you still learned something. Most of my science, probably was before Karl Popper redefined science. Not a philosophy-fan...

Mostly, I do electronics, as a hobby. I don't have high-end tools and equipment, but I seldom need to be precise. There is generally a sufficient margin in the tolerance, that I can get away with being a little off, and still get it working. Might have to make a few manual adjustments, or substitute a part or two, to get better performance, or less smoke... The point is, that I can build or repair stuff, with less than ideal tools and parts. I've don't quite a few repairs, with salvaged parts, that were just barely close enough, rather than chase down the correct part, and ordering it. Single components are expensive, and hardly worth it. Lot of places have a minimal order, and standard shipping cost. I need a 65 cent voltage regulator, no way I'm paying $15.
14-08-2020 21:25
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1214)
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:WHAT DATA????

Don't hold your breath waiting for a valid dataset from DRATS.

I'm not...
But I'm still going to badger him for it... haha, get it?? "badger".... Bucky Badger... I'm from Wisconsin.
Did I over-explain the lame joke enough to ruin it?

IBdaMann wrote:
It's like the Manual says, "The Data" is rumored to be real and desperately believed to exist by Global Warming worshipers. DRATS is relying on the oft-repeated dogma amongst warmizombies that the mere mention of "The Data" is supposed to get you to shut up and OBEY.

Indeed, the Manual is spot on about this. It's "out there" "somewhere"...

Jeeze, at least I'm forthright about my Christian faith and don't attempt to disguise it as "science".

IBdaMann wrote:
Didn't you catch DRATS' specific mention of "The Data"? Yes? Then what the he11 are you still questioning for? What are you, slow?

Silly me... I ought to accept it as True simply because he declared it to be such... Got it.

IBdaMann wrote:
Yeah, he has no valid data. His only recourse, as you probably noticed, is to bully, as he tried with Harvey, by pretending to speak for "10,000s" of scientists who happen to be utter scientifically-illiterate morons as he describes them.

Yup, I noticed the bullying. Such bullying doesn't work with me. I wish to see this heralded data for myself, regardless of what "10,000s" of "scientists" have to say about the matter...

IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:** A margin of error was not calculated.

More importantly, no target margin of error was determined. Researchers establish a target margin of error as the very first order of business; that is determined by the requirements of the project, i.e. the reason for the measuring in the first place. If the project's success hinges on knowing the earth's temperature to within four degrees Celsius then their target margin of error is +/-4C. This, in turn, determines the collection plan.

Thanks for adding this. This is indeed the beginning point. The calculation comes later, to show that the project indeed "met specs".

IBdaMann wrote:
Has DRATS made any mention of the collection plan and subsequently the target margin of error driving the collection methodology? ... or are we supposed to believe the world's top scientists just randomly measure things, somehow planning to correct for their lack of planning and forethought by simply "regridding," "reweighting" and other number-fudging on their random measurements AFTERWARDS?

He thinks we should believe the latter... I'll stick with doing the former...

IBdaMann wrote:
DRATS is a fraud. He is desperate for a online discussion forum whereby people think he is actually smart. He's a loser. He thinks science is a religion. He's a moron.

.

Yup, this thread alone is quite a glaring example of that.
Edited on 14-08-2020 21:28
15-08-2020 00:01
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(575)
You people have covered it.Whats the plan DRKTS.Do you have a solution
15-08-2020 01:57
James___
★★★★★
(3173)
DRKTS wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
How many times to we really need to review extrapolated data, proxies, and analog data, to know it's all speculation and mathemagic? Repetition doesn't make it right, or any more acceptable. You can display the newly 'corrected' data, in as many colorful graphs and video simulations, but it's still not science. It's like putting the same crappy product, in a new package, and selling as new and improved, even though it was never changed.


Its none of those things.

So, according to you, 10,000s of trained scientists versed in math, statistics, and familiar with the relevant scientific principles associated with weather and climate (atmospheric physics, oceanography, fluid dynamics, space physics, solar physics, etc) are wrong and you, an anonymous person apparently with no such qualifications (judging by some of the things you just said) posting on a blog, are right? How likely is that.

You all rely on a bunch of unsupported assertions based on the fossil fuel industry's propaganda and repeat them over and over, but as some wise person recently said "Repetition doesn't make it right, or any more acceptable."



@DRKTS, most people in here are devout Christians like gfm7175. They reject science because they don't care about sustainability.
I'm not sure there are 10,000s scientists who support the IPCC. I've read many articles written by scientists that don't really agree. And yet they are ignored.
The media IMO has been fuelling this debate because of Al Gore. I got interested in climate change after I watched his video "An Inconvenient Truth". There was no science in the documentary.
IMO, the documentary was created to support a conclusion and was not about encouraging a discussion. I like my own work. And in this forum, these individuals (Christians) believe that I agree with Al Gore's documentary when I don't.
It's like a quixotic quote I used to hear all the time. There are 3 sides to every story, theirs, yours and the truth.
The sad reality is that justice should not be blind. In that it is and is considered as a positive attribute shows how wrong people can be.
Attached image:

15-08-2020 04:42
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(575)
DRKTS wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
How many times to we really need to review extrapolated data, proxies, and analog data, to know it's all speculation and mathemagic? Repetition doesn't make it right, or any more acceptable. You can display the newly 'corrected' data, in as many colorful graphs and video simulations, but it's still not science. It's like putting the same crappy product, in a new package, and selling as new and improved, even though it was never changed.


Its none of those things.

So, according to you, 10,000s of trained scientists versed in math, statistics, and familiar with the relevant scientific principles associated with weather and climate (atmospheric physics, oceanography, fluid dynamics, space physics, solar physics, etc) are wrong and you, an anonymous person apparently with no such qualifications (judging by some of the things you just said) posting on a blog, are right? How likely is that.

You all rely on a bunch of unsupported assertions based on the fossil fuel industry's propaganda and repeat them over and over, but as some wise person recently said "Repetition doesn't make it right, or any more acceptable."


Who are the 10,000 scientists and why do they not have real jobs Nils axel Mornier proved the sea level has not changed and Don Eastbrook explained to a climate panel that the warming theory does not work in real time world.I have faith in these scientists who I can see and hear.What are you achieving by trying to convince real people the temperature is going to spiral out of control when it is not.


duncan61
15-08-2020 05:05
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(575)
I watched the video af 2 mature people standing next to the weather station in the snowy mountains and his thermometer is on the box and showing -14.7C yet the BOM one is showing -10 because they were told to calibrate the instrument to not go below -10 so when it all gets diluted down their is nearly 5 degrees missing from the average.Do you not believe this.The good that has come from this is enough people made enough noise for real people to get involved and show the truth
15-08-2020 06:58
James___
★★★★★
(3173)
duncan61 wrote:
I watched the video af 2 mature people standing next to the weather station in the snowy mountains and his thermometer is on the box and showing -14.7C yet the BOM one is showing -10 because they were told to calibrate the instrument to not go below -10 so when it all gets diluted down their is nearly 5 degrees missing from the average.Do you not believe this.The good that has come from this is enough people made enough noise for real people to get involved and show the truth



When I visited Yekaterinburg, Russia, I noticed that people did not go outside when it was nice. An example is if when it was -22º C., no one was outside. And when it got to -14º C., people still didn't like to go outside.
I mean I live in Kentucky and visited Russia for some nice weather and they didn't like it. What is wrong with this world? This is funny. People think your crazy if you wear shorts when it's + 0.5º C.
And then they complain when it's +40 C. With me, I won't go swimming if it's less than 27º C. Just to cold you know.



fyi, -7º F at night and +7º F during the day. @ + 14º F., time to take your coat off and enjoy a nice, warm, sunny day. Russia in winter might not be for you.
On the Columbia River, in the summer it's 58º F (the water in the river). When the air is 80º F., it's a good day for swimming.
In Phoenix, if it's less than 100º F. outside, too little humidity/heat. At 110º F.+, you'll sweat more readily.
Being 1/2 Norwegian among other things, what stimulates a body's natural response to endothermic conditions? And if you're afraid, how can you adapt?
Edited on 15-08-2020 07:08
15-08-2020 22:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13295)
DRKTS wrote:
See https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/ytd/7/1880-2020

July 2020 at 0.92C warmer than the 20th Century average and so was second only to July 2019.
NOAA does not have any data of the temperature of the Earth. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. You are just quoting random numbers.
DRKTS wrote:
YTD it was 2nd warmest on record, just behind 2016 And that during a neutral ENSO phase! Remember 2016 was the strongest El Nino since the 1998 one and yet 2020 is rivaling it!

El Nino/La Nina has nothing to do with the temperature of the Earth. It is caused by the variable positions of currents along the equatorial areas of the oceans. It is normal variation.
DRKTS wrote:
Still a neutral phase for El Nino/La Nina but with a La Nina possibly forming in the autumn. See https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf

NOAA does not this data either. They cannot predict the future.
DRKTS wrote:
If you have any questions about the data or the analysis methods follow the useful links provided on the NOAA webpages.

False authority fallacy. Argument from randU fallacy. No argument presented.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
15-08-2020 23:03
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13295)
DRKTS wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
What "data"?? All I see are made-up numbers that are utterly meaningless...

It is not possible to measure global temperature to any usable accuracy. We do not have enough thermometers to do so (amongst numerous other mathematical issues).


I guess you have not bothered to read the papers that describe the data
Papers are not data. There is no data. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
DRKTS wrote:
and or analysis methods.

Statistical math demands a few things, which NOAA (and you) are ignoring:
* only raw data can be used. It must be published, along with the method of collecting it.
* Collection of data MUST use unbiased methods of collecting. You cannot use cooked data or interpolate estimates of missing data.
* the variance MUST be declared and justified. I use 20 deg F per mile, since that steep a temperature gradient happens fairly commonly.
* the margin of error MUST be calculated and presented with the averages. Averages without this value are completely meaningless.
* selection of data MUST be by randN. Once you pick a point of data, you cannot pick it again. You can only pick it once, not 1.5 times, not 3 times, ONCE.
* the tolerance and calibration of any instrumentation used must be known.

Time is significant. Storms move, the Earth spins, it is unevenly heated, etc. ALL measurements of temperature MUST be taken at the same time by the same authority.

Location grouping is significant. 100 thermometers in the city of Seattle tell you nothing about the temperature of Yakima. Thermometers MUST be uniformly spaced.

Due to the number of thermometers used by NASA which uses more thermometers than NOAA, uniformly spacing thermometers on Earth would result in one thermometer monitoring an area the size of Virginia. Since temperatures can vary as much as 20 deg F per mile, the average if all these thermometers has a margin of error greater than the highest and lowest temperatures ever recorded on Earth. In other words, you are guessing.

DRKTS wrote:
You need to provide proof of your assertion, I see none

Statistical mathematics requires no further proof. You are denying mathematics.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
15-08-2020 23:03
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13295)
DRKTS wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
Plus the data gets homogenised like Amberely Airforce base that showed a 1 deg C cooling since 1941 yet after smoothing shows a 1.76 deg Warming. go figure


Did you read the paper describing the results? No! So you have no basis for that assertion


Papers are not data.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
15-08-2020 23:09
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13295)
DRKTS wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
The part of all this, is that it's pretty well understood, that we don't actually have any capacity to actually capture an accurate a complete global temperature, global CO2 level, or have much in the way of actual historic data. Basically, it's take what little we got to work with, declare it a standard, and try to show how it's changing. Even the IPCC will tell us that what happens in on specific locations, that doesn't conform, doesn't really matter, since they are looking at the entire planet, over long periods of time. But they refuse to admit, that the same dismissive argument, applies, since best case, they can only look at 20% or less of the planet, at ant particular period of time. There s a lot of things about life, and this planet, that we don't understand, and certainly have no control over. It's never stopped people in the past from declaring understanding of a problem, and having a handy solution.

Drought has been such a problem, and there have been many solutions, since recorded history, on how to make it rain. We've never actually ever made it rain on demand, but we have figured out how to manage or water resources better on the ground. Well, except 'Let it Burn' California... Earthquakes and volcanoes... Use to be common practice to shove people into volcanoes, maybe to get a closer look?

The IPCC, doesn't even have a lot of confidence in their own work. Climate activist also use the argument that, even if doesn't go apocalyptic, least we will have a cleaner, 'greener', healthier planet. Where is the sense of responsibility, accountability, consequences? These people are pretty full of themselves, admitting they are clueless, and don't care. It makes absolutely no difference if they are right or wrong about global warming, only that we cover the entire surface with windmills and solar panels.

The reality, we can't control where or when it rains. We can control the planet temperature. There is no thermostat, like in the office or lab. We have absolutely zero control over the planet. What we can do, is manage how we use the resources available, to minimize the impact of what ever the planet, naturally throws at us. If we are getting warmer, we will adapt accordingly, least many of use, and we will survive as a species. If we are trending toward a long period of cooling, we can adapt to that too, plenty of oil and coal to burn for heat. Fighting the planet has never turned out well, for many of those who have tried in the past. Those that survive, are those willing to accept that the environment constantly changes, and figure out how to use the available resources to adapt.


A series of unsupported assertions.
They are all supported.
DRKTS wrote:
A debate is an exchange of arguments backed by real data.

WRONG. A debate is a structured question and answer session, conducted by a moderator presenting the questions. An exchange of arguments is called a conversation, not a debate.
Data is the result of making an observation. ALL observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology. Data is NOT a proof. The word 'real' is also defined in this branch of philosophy. You are using it as a buzzword, while denying philosophy.
DRKTS wrote:
Not someone providing data and then he other side averring things that have no scientific basis whatsoever.

No science here. Move along, move along.

Science is not mathematics. Mathematics is not science. You are denying mathematics here. You are denying statistical mathematics.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
15-08-2020 23:14
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13295)
DRKTS wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
How many times to we really need to review extrapolated data, proxies, and analog data, to know it's all speculation and mathemagic? Repetition doesn't make it right, or any more acceptable. You can display the newly 'corrected' data, in as many colorful graphs and video simulations, but it's still not science. It's like putting the same crappy product, in a new package, and selling as new and improved, even though it was never changed.


Its none of those things.

So, according to you, 10,000s of trained scientists versed in math, statistics, and familiar with the relevant scientific principles associated with weather and climate (atmospheric physics, oceanography, fluid dynamics, space physics, solar physics, etc) are wrong and you, an anonymous person apparently with no such qualifications (judging by some of the things you just said) posting on a blog, are right? How likely is that.

'Expert' worship fallacy.

Science isn't a credential, degree, training, or even a scientist. It isn't people at all. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all.

You are denying mathematics and statistical math. So is NOAA. So is NASA. A government organization is not science nor mathematics. Neither has any global temperature data. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
DRKTS wrote:
You all rely on a bunch of unsupported assertions based on the fossil fuel industry's propaganda

We don't burn fossils for fuel. Fossils don't burn. There is no fossil fuel industry.
DRKTS wrote:
and repeat them over and over, but as some wise person recently said "Repetition doesn't make it right, or any more acceptable."

Me included. Argument by repetition is itself a fallacy. One that you keep making.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit




Join the debate July 2020: the second warmest July on Record.:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
August 2020 second warmest August on Record2421-09-2020 01:47
July 2020 - Feeling the Heat?7604-09-2020 05:45
US climate for July 20203611-08-2020 00:05
BREAKING NEWS! April 2020 - 2nd Warmest April on record.9705-06-2020 19:21
Setting the record straight on the climate debate4018-03-2020 05:32
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact