July 2020: the second warmest July on Record.

DRKTS wrote:If you have any questions about the data or the analysis methods follow the useful links provided on the NOAA webpages.

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).

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

gfm7175 wrote:WHAT DATA????

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

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."

IBdaMann wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:WHAT DATA????

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

.

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 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."

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

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.

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!

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

DRKTS wrote:
If you have any questions about the data or the analysis methods follow the useful links provided on the NOAA webpages.

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

DRKTS wrote:
and or analysis methods.

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

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

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.

DRKTS wrote:
A debate is an exchange of arguments backed by real data.

DRKTS wrote:
Not someone providing data and then he other side averring things that have no scientific basis whatsoever.

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.

DRKTS wrote:
You all rely on a bunch of unsupported assertions based on the fossil fuel industry's propaganda

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."