So 2015 is the hottest year on record?

Announced just before the Paris convention...

NOAA came up with this scare.

The satellite data that accurately measures the atmospheric global temperature shows no statistical warning for 18 years (and 9 months). Of course if there is no atmospheric warming there can be no global warming. (PM me if you don't understand the basic physics)

But NOAA has come up with a "new" formula that ignores the accurate and unaltered atmosphere figures, relies on temperature stations on the ground, that are subject to the moving of weather stations, increased and decreased concrete surroundings, sample ocean scooping's, from ocean liners and homogenization of data. And of course nobody is privy to how the data is manipulated.

Just so we are clear:

-Satellite data uses infrared technology across the atmosphere and is entirely accurate

- NOAA's "new" global temperature findings use man made weather stations and a raft of other inaccurate temperature gages. Then they "adjust" them and then they come up with the hottest year on record, just in time for the Paris convention.

Now NOAA is in a world of hurt because congress has requested the raw data, adjusted data and method of manipulation of data that they used to claim the hottest year on record. But of course NOAA wont release it, at least this side of the Paris convention.

Are there any on here that argue Essendon should be hit with the full force of the law for not providing their body of evidence on allegedly drugging 40 players but think it is fine that that NOAA wont supply their data that effects the world policy and could potentially leave millions in poverty?

Edited November 30, 20159 yr by Wrecker45

Not sure you'll get much of a response.

The alarmists round here seem to be weather beaten.

Not sure you'll get much of a response.

The alarmists round here seem to be weather beaten.

I don't need a response. The silence is deafening.

What's the reason they are giving for not providing the data?

If the data correction methodology is sound, just release both the raw and adjusted datasets along with an explanation of the modifiers and why they were used.

Those links show the request for the data and their website, I am curious to know what the NOAA's actual response was.

Not sure you'll get much of a response.

The alarmists round here seem to be weather beaten.

Alarmists? The only alarmists I see around here are those that are alarmed they might be a few dollars out of pocket.

Edited December 1, 20159 yr by hardtack

What's the reason they are giving for not providing the data?

If the data correction methodology is sound, just release both the raw and adjusted datasets along with an explanation of the modifiers and why they were used.

Those links show the request for the data and their website, I am curious to know what the NOAA's actual response was.

Choke - NOAA are not advertising on their website or anywhere else that they refuse to disclose their methodology or data in a transparent way, even to congress, despite being publicly funded.

I would love to see their response as well.

Alarmists? The only alarmists I see around here are those that are alarmed they might be a few dollars out of pocket.

Hardtack - do you think it is an inditement on Essendon that they won't provide their records or will you give them the benefit of the doubt?

Edited December 1, 20159 yr by Wrecker45

Hardtack - do you think it is an inditement on Essendon that they won't provide their records or will you give them the benefit of the doubt?

Not at all... I believe that Essendon are a club of denialists and that they will be found out and have to pay the price... their time is up.

On 12/1/2015, 10:51:09, hardtack said:

Not at all... I believe that Essendon are a club of denialists and that they will be found out and have to pay the price... their time is up.

Do you also agree NOAA should be transparent with their (US tax payer funded) data?

2 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

Do you also agree NOAA should be transparent with their (US tax payer funded) data?

I don't believe I said that Essendon should be transparent... I said the truth will out despite their denials... much like it will regardless of those denying climate change.

33 minutes ago, hardtack said:

I don't believe I said that Essendon should be transparent... I said the truth will out despite their denials... much like it will regardless of those denying climate change.

how often does "the truth will out" occur unequivocally, hardtack

truth is the most illusive of concepts

just saying

9 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

how often does "the truth will out" occur unequivocally, hardtack

truth is the most illusive of concepts

just saying

True DC, very true... but I suppose in the case of climate change, you probably don't want to wait to find out... because by then it will be too late.

On 30 November 2015 3:01:01 pm, Wrecker45 said:

So 2015 is the hottest year on record?

Announced just before the Paris convention...

NOAA came up with this scare.

The satellite data that accurately measures the atmospheric global temperature shows no statistical warning for 18 years (and 9 months). Of course if there is no atmospheric warming there can be no global warming. (PM me if you don't understand the basic physics)

But NOAA has come up with a "new" formula that ignores the accurate and unaltered atmosphere figures, relies on temperature stations on the ground, that are subject to the moving of weather stations, increased and decreased concrete surroundings, sample ocean scooping's, from ocean liners and homogenization of data. And of course nobody is privy to how the data is manipulated.

Just so we are clear:

-Satellite data uses infrared technology across the atmosphere and is entirely accurate

- NOAA's "new" global temperature findings use man made weather stations and a raft of other inaccurate temperature gages. Then they "adjust" them and then they come up with the hottest year on record, just in time for the Paris convention.

Now NOAA is in a world of hurt because congress has requested the raw data, adjusted data and method of manipulation of data that they used to claim the hottest year on record. But of course NOAA wont release it, at least this side of the Paris convention.

Are there any on here that argue Essendon should be hit with the full force of the law for not providing their body of evidence on allegedly drugging 40 players but think it is fine that that NOAA wont supply their data that effects the world policy and could potentially leave millions in poverty?

So does this mean you are a climate change denier? 

1 minute ago, leucopogon said:

So does this mean you are a climate change denier? 

Is the Pope a Catholic?

On 30 November 2015 at 08:01:01, Wrecker45 said:

The satellite data that accurately measures the atmospheric global temperature ...

At which point I stopped reading.

Satellites do not measure temperature.

The biggest scam in world history. 

50 minutes ago, Munga said:

The biggest scam in world history. 

Yes yes, it's all a massive conspiracy put out there by the mob that brought down the twin towers and claimed a plane had been flown into the Pentagon.  Unless you have conclusive evidence that this is a scam, then you are none the wiser than those of us who may not be convinced either way, but all the same, would rather not wait until it is too late. 

1 hour ago, hardtack said:

Yes yes, it's all a massive conspiracy put out there by the mob that brought down the twin towers and claimed a plane had been flown into the Pentagon.  Unless you have conclusive evidence that this is a scam, then you are none the wiser than those of us who may not be convinced either way, but all the same, would rather not wait until it is too late. 

You're right, i should've included it was "in my opinion". Im not a conspiracy theorist but this one reeks of it . Nevertheless I think we should be doing our best to protect the environment for the future. But this, from what I've read is going to be a massive reappropriation of western tax payers dollars, under the guise of saving the planet. 

3 hours ago, bing181 said:

At which point I stopped reading.

Satellites do not measure temperature.

Kudos to you. By far the most intelligent post from a believer in climate change I have seen on demonland,

The sattelites measure radiance not temperature. But they are directly related. And the point still stands. No increase in radiance wavelength bands in the atmosphere means there can be no global warming.

Do you think it appropriate that NOAA wont release their raw data, then manipulated data showing the hottest year ever and method for achieving it? 

 

 

Edited December 4, 20159 yr by Wrecker45

4 hours ago, leucopogon said:

So does this mean you are a climate change denier? 

Not at all. I believe the climate has changed previously and will always change going forward. I just don't have the delusional view that man controls the climate. What temperature forecast reduction are they hoping Kyoto 2 will deliver again?

i'll add it to the list of all the other dud predictions.

1 hour ago, hardtack said:

Yes yes, it's all a massive conspiracy put out there by the mob that brought down the twin towers and claimed a plane had been flown into the Pentagon.  Unless you have conclusive evidence that this is a scam, then you are none the wiser than those of us who may not be convinced either way, but all the same, would rather not wait until it is too late. 

What do you think about Essendon? Whilst they won't produce the records of what they have injected their players I will believe it's a massive conspiracy. No different for any scientific body who won't transparently release the data behind their findings.

Do you believe 2015 is the hottest year on record based on NOAA's investigation?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7 minutes ago, Wrecker45 said:

What do you think about Essendon? Whilst they won't produce the records of what they have injected their players I will believe it's a massive conspiracy. No different for any scientific body who won't transparently release the data behind their findings.

Do you believe 2015 is the hottest year on record based on NOAA's investigation?

I hadn't given it any thought to be honest.... although I occasionally do like to argue some points because I would rather we exercise caution in areas such as CO2 emissions (something that man does have control over and that does affect climate), I am not obsessed with it... from what I have seen in these threads, the only people who are, appear to be yourself and Pro Dee judging by the post count and desperate need to be "right".

Edited December 4, 20159 yr by hardtack

On 12/4/2015 at 11:34 PM, hardtack said:

I hadn't given it any thought to be honest.... although I occasionally do like to argue some points because I would rather we exercise caution in areas such as CO2 emissions (something that man does have control over and that does affect climate), I am not obsessed with it... from what I have seen in these threads, the only people who are, appear to be yourself and Pro Dee judging by the post count and desperate need to be "right".

There is no desperate need to be "right". You will notice Bing181 correctly called me out for saying the satellite data measures temperature. Which it doesn't. I have highlighted the fact I was incorrect. 

The obsessed comment also intrigues me. Can anybody contribute to a (this) thread, that has a contrary opinion to yourself, without being labelled obsessive?

 

3 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

There is no desperate need to be "right". You will notice Bing181 correctly called me out for saying the satellite data measures temperature. Which it doesn't. I have highlighted the fact I was incorrect. 

The obsessed comment also intrigues me. Can anybody contribute to a (this) thread, that has a contrary opinion to yourself, without being labelled obsessive?

 

Yes indeed, those who don't post obsessively in an attempt to beat others into submission (you will notice that I only called two people out). 

I don't need to beat others into submission because the facts are on my side.

Perhaps you should look at the Jack Watts, Cale Morton or Jimmy Toumpas threads for obsessive writers.