US climate for July 2020

keepit wrote: DRATS, Some of the posters on this website have an AGENDA that prevents them from engaging in the knowledge that you impart. And thank you for the information.

IBdaMann wrote:

keepit wrote: DRATS, Some of the posters on this website have an AGENDA that prevents them from engaging in the knowledge that you impart. And thank you for the information.

Sadly, it has reached the most pathetic point possible. Only the internet's dumbest poster supports DRATS.

This show has become too painful to watch.


.

gfm7175 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

keepit wrote: DRATS, Some of the posters on this website have an AGENDA that prevents them from engaging in the knowledge that you impart. And thank you for the information.

Sadly, it has reached the most pathetic point possible. Only the internet's dumbest poster supports DRATS.

This show has become too painful to watch.


.

Agreed... all the popcorn in the world can't keep me in front of this shit show...

I Can't Watch This

duncan61 wrote:
That was good stuff James

keepit wrote:
DRKTS,
Some of the posters on this website have an AGENDA that prevents them from engaging in the knowledge that you impart. And thank you for the information.

duncan61 wrote:
I watched it twice and loved it.I am going to watch it again.I have a question does it set a record because it was recorded and what is it recorded against.I have recently proved the Australian BOM homogenize the data to show a warming instead of a cooling at many of the automatic sites.I wonder if that happens in the U.S?.How many storms became hurricanes.I thought because we have warmed the ocean so much the lobsters are precooked that every low pressure system would turn in to a people killing cyclone.More information required?who peer reveiwed it because I would like IBDM to check it out.I have learned how the pretty colour maps are made by the computer models.They give you what you put in them and if that data is not 100% correct you can see the doubt.Lets recap
.Micheal Mann was caught making it up
.Some countries homogenize the data.Australia and US that I know of .Russia most of Europe and England do not and publish the true data from long term records.They do not keep moving and changing the type and position of the stations then fudging past results
.The models will show you what you wish them to
.Time will prove all and in 50 years when nothing has happened like nothing has happened in the last 50 years we will all have a good laugh about it

duncan61 wrote:
I can send you pictures of me standing at the port 50 years ago and again last week and there has been zero difference in sea level.Its all theory so the working man will need a bit more to go on than computer generated pictures.You will scare the kids and young women,well done.I visited a friend with 3 young boys and I asked do they teach you this stuff at school and they do.How dare you lie to the children again

duncan61 wrote:

.1 There is a relationship between CO2 and bushfires.Its not the people charged with lighting them or the reduction in backburning but .9 degrees warming somewhere

.2 Sea level rise .The claim is made half the ice has melted and the sea has gone up.To this point I can not find anywhere that the sea has risen in the entire world and if you send me pretty pictures from NASA,NOAA or the IPCC we are done.I need you standing with a measuring tape and showing me where it was and where it is and why.

duncan61 wrote:
Harvey if you are out there.What is happening in Miami

DRKTS wrote:
Report on July 2020 US climate data - all the data is referenced and readily available as are the analysis methods referenced in peer-reviewed papers.

Enjoy .... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RL59ROH8GLQ

keepit wrote:
DRKTS,
Some of the posters on this website have an AGENDA that prevents them from engaging in the knowledge that you impart. And thank you for the information.

DRKTS wrote:

keepit wrote:
DRKTS,
Some of the posters on this website have an AGENDA that prevents them from engaging in the knowledge that you impart. And thank you for the information.

Yes, I have observed that.

DRKTS wrote:
The best antidotes to such agendas are facts.

DRKTS wrote:
I find are allergic to them and go into anaphylactic shock.

DRKTS wrote:
The symptoms of which are ever more bazaar denials of even basic physical laws and common sense which erodes their credibility with each iteration.

DRKTS wrote:
Recently one of them was driven to denying heat was energy!

DRKTS wrote:

duncan61 wrote:
I watched it twice and loved it.I am going to watch it again.I have a question does it set a record because it was recorded and what is it recorded against.I have recently proved the Australian BOM homogenize the data to show a warming instead of a cooling at many of the automatic sites.I wonder if that happens in the U.S?.How many storms became hurricanes.I thought because we have warmed the ocean so much the lobsters are precooked that every low pressure system would turn in to a people killing cyclone.More information required?who peer reveiwed it because I would like IBDM to check it out.I have learned how the pretty colour maps are made by the computer models.They give you what you put in them and if that data is not 100% correct you can see the doubt.Lets recap
.Micheal Mann was caught making it up
.Some countries homogenize the data.Australia and US that I know of .Russia most of Europe and England do not and publish the true data from long term records.They do not keep moving and changing the type and position of the stations then fudging past results
.The models will show you what you wish them to
.Time will prove all and in 50 years when nothing has happened like nothing has happened in the last 50 years we will all have a good laugh about it

Glad you enjoyed it.

Most of the things you list as problems are merely accusations that I have seen no scientifically viable proof to support.

DRKTS wrote:
The data is all available in its raw form, station by station, minute by minute, 24-7-365. You can go to the NCDC and request copies of it.

DRKTS wrote:
I am not sure what you mean by homogenization - there are set, proven statistical analysis methods that are used by all of these groups.

DRKTS wrote:
Some of them make the data sets available at each stage of the analysis - usually: stage 0 is raw data; stage 1 is digital data turned into scientific units

DRKTS wrote:
with bad-checksum data removed;

DRKTS wrote:
stage 2 data is fully calibrated data;

DRKTS wrote:
and stage 3 data is the final product (maps, light curves, etc).

DRKTS wrote:
The error analysis is propagated through each stage.

DRKTS wrote:

duncan61 wrote:
I can send you pictures of me standing at the port 50 years ago and again last week and there has been zero difference in sea level.Its all theory so the working man will need a bit more to go on than computer generated pictures.You will scare the kids and young women,well done.I visited a friend with 3 young boys and I asked do they teach you this stuff at school and they do.How dare you lie to the children again

Remember to verify the tide, note the Moon only repeats its cycle every 18.6 years so that is going to be hard.

DRKTS wrote:

duncan61 wrote:

.1 There is a relationship between CO2 and bushfires.Its not the people charged with lighting them or the reduction in backburning but .9 degrees warming somewhere

Higher temperatures

DRKTS wrote:
- lower soil moisture content

DRKTS wrote:
- makes plants dry out more quickly - so are more vulnerable to fire.

DRKTS wrote:

.2 Sea level rise .The claim is made half the ice has melted and the sea has gone up.To this point I can not find anywhere that the sea has risen in the entire world and if you send me pretty pictures from NASA,NOAA or the IPCC we are done.I need you standing with a measuring tape and showing me where it was and where it is and why.

Who claims half the ice has melted? Strawman argument.

DRKTS wrote:
If you cannot find a place in the entire world where sea level has risen then you are not looking. the satellite data for example:
...deleted Holy Link to Wikipedia...

DRKTS wrote:
Look at Miami during King Tides - now flooding is so often occurring that they are spending $Bs to raise the roads and increase pumping capacity.

DRKTS wrote:
HarveyH55

Try https://www.miamigov.com/Government/ClimateReadyMiami/Flooding

or, https://www.thenation.com/article/environment/florida-flooding-miami/

or, https://miami.cbslocal.com/2012/10/17/rising-water-cause-flood-of-trouble-on-miami-beach/

or, .....

Into the Night wrote:

Lie. All of these groups are denying statistical math, just as you do.
* data MUST be collected by a means that removes all bias.
* selection of data for analysis MUST be by randN.
* cooked data cannot be used.
* the variance has not yet been declared and justified.
* the margin of error value has not been calculated to accompany the summary. That value MUST accompany the averages.

Temperature is already a scientific unit. Nothing to convert. Unfortunately, the data is collected in a biased manner. Location grouping is significant. Time is significant. There is also insufficient data. Temperature varies as much as 20 deg F per mile.

Data has no checksum. An instrument reporting a bad checksum is no data at all.

Temperature is already calibrated. You are describing the cooking of data. Not allowed in statistical math.

Pretty maps of random numbers is still random numbers. It is not data.

Lie. The variance has not been declared and justified. Denial of mathematics. False authority fallacy. Use of proof in open functional system.

DRKTS wrote: No data is without bias, they just have to be identified, quantified, and corrected for which scientists call 'data analysis' and you call 'cooked'

DRKTS wrote: The uncertainty is calculated and published,

DRKTS wrote: Temperature is already a scientific unit. Nothing to convert.

DRKTS wrote: Unfortunately, the data is collected in a biased manner.

DRKTS wrote:Demonstrating scientific incompetency again? No instrument directly measures temperature,

DRKTS wrote: Again read the papers that describe the process and get back to us

IBdaMann wrote:

DRKTS wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

You quoted several things I did not say.

duncan61 wrote:
Go ITN you covered it all.I like the holy sites analogy.The internet is full of random stuff.I ask show me where the sea level rising and I get Miami.Next I will get Bangladesh.Check who made up the first link NOAA and IPCC. And even they are 50% out with each other.I will be getting a delivery from Aus post today and I hope its the CO2 meter not the parts for my Honda

HarveyH55 wrote:
I've lived in Florida for quite a while. Pretty sure if Miami was having major problems, and wanting substantial money to fix it, study it, it would be on the local news, least occasionally. Other than weather related issues, common throughout the state, there has been any pressing long term problems with sinking or flooding. Al Gore's prediction was way off.

DRKTS wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Lie. All of these groups are denying statistical math, just as you do.
* data MUST be collected by a means that removes all bias.
* selection of data for analysis MUST be by randN.
* cooked data cannot be used.
* the variance has not yet been declared and justified.
* the margin of error value has not been calculated to accompany the summary. That value MUST accompany the averages.

No data is without bias,

DRKTS wrote:
they just have to be identified, quantified, and corrected for which scientists call 'data analysis' and you call 'cooked'

DRKTS wrote:
The uncertainty is calculated and published, just not in the summary data (that is why it is a summary), as I said before you need to read the published papers describing the analysis methods.

DRKTS wrote:

Temperature is already a scientific unit. Nothing to convert. Unfortunately, the data is collected in a biased manner. Location grouping is significant. Time is significant. There is also insufficient data. Temperature varies as much as 20 deg F per mile.

Demonstrating scientific incompetency again?

DRKTS wrote:
No instrument directly measures temperature,

DRKTS wrote:
the scale on a thermometer has to be calibrated

DRKTS wrote:
whether it relies on the expansion of mercury, the difference in expansion of two metals, resistance, or spectral emissions.

DRKTS wrote:
The calibration shifts with time,

DRKTS wrote:
requiring constant attention to re-establishing the calibration with respect to an absolute standard.

DRKTS wrote:

Data has no checksum. An instrument reporting a bad checksum is no data at all.

Again a checksum error does not mean all the data from an instrument is invalid.

DRKTS wrote:
It means that one or more bits has been flipped in transmission.

DRKTS wrote:
So that one data packet is considered suspect.

DRKTS wrote:
It is usually obvious which bit was flipped because that data is oddly large or small compared to the previous and next packages.

DRKTS wrote:
Most often this occurs in the housekeeping data (engineering data) of each data packet, which often takes up more telemetry than the actual data itself.

DRKTS wrote:

Temperature is already calibrated. You are describing the cooking of data. Not allowed in statistical math.

See above.

DRKTS wrote:

Pretty maps of random numbers is still random numbers. It is not data.

what a silly thing to say!

DRKTS wrote:

Lie. The variance has not been declared and justified. Denial of mathematics. False authority fallacy. Use of proof in open functional system.

Again read the papers that describe the process

DRKTS wrote:
and get back to us when you understand what they have done

DRKTS wrote:
and can point out specific problems

DRKTS wrote:
with those long-established and standard analysis methods.

DRKTS wrote:
You are the one denying math.

DRKTS wrote:
Willful ignorance is still ignorance but of a worse kind.

DRKTS wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

You quoted several things I did not say.