NASA Ranks This August Warmest On Record

We're still thinking about it.

 

Really? Shouldn't the answer be easily accessible public information? What's there to think about?

 

This is not weather. It's comparing this august with the past 100 years of augusts and adding it to a general trend in warming. Weather is short term. 100 years is not short term.

 

100 years is an extraordinarily short term. How about we compare it to the last 1000 years of Augusts?

 

Change cooling to warming and I think you will have the answer.

 

NASA claims that adjustments follow processes laid out in peer reviewed papers. It should be easy for any suitably qualified person to verify this. If it’s false, then NASA’s global temperature data set can be dismissed as fatally flawed. So, go for it. You armchair scientists crack me up. NASA can't be trusted, yet a circle jerk of no-name bloggers with non-existent credentials can?

 

The idiocy is truly infuriating. Seriously, can you guys comprehend the difference between weather and climate? New York is not the world, your town is not the world. Just because you experienced a slightly colder season does not mean that Nigeria or Australia experienced the same.

 

Are personal attacks the way thinking types win arguments?

If the reason why NASA changed its data this year is so readily available, why can't you answer my question? What happened between the months of June and August of this year that caused them to change temperature indexes in the entire 100 year data set?

 

Temperatures are adjusted every time they publish new sets. They adjust past temperatures all the time as seen with the current GISS records. Why would that be necessary? There are numerous methods to measure 'global' temperatures since there is no place on earth that it is not cooling or warming so they have to come up with some method to represent one temperature. The reason the various records don't match is because they use different points of measurement and different algorithms to come up with one temperature. One thing that usually isn't reported are the statistical high and low meaning that if the temperature is within that band that it could be anywhere in that band and that no statistical warming or cooling has happened because they would not know. In effect, it could be slightly cooling not warming so in effect that is why there has been no statistically significant warming since 1998 and highs and lows within that band are meaningless. That makes this announcement of an August high meaningless. Also, this is only the high in GISS where it is not in other temperature sets.

 

Color me surprised that when someone actually asks a cogent question that does not have a easily located bullet point answer, those who accuse skeptics of idiocy scurry away.

Data is the result of experimentation and observation.

Last call. What did scientists observe in August of 2014 that changed the data associated with temperatures in 1880? Why were they not able to make this same observation in 2013, 2012, or even June of 2014? What mistake, if any, did they make that requires this correction?

Why did a similar event take place between the reports of June - September of 2012?

 

No one is "scurrying" away. I don't portend to be a scientist, and i'm not going to waste my time examining the records to ensure your characterization is correct in the first place. However, I will say that the only sources you people ever give in an attempt to debunk a climate change story are unreliable. You have to use Occam's Razor. If there really is some kind of massive conspiracy to push climate change at a global scale, why hasn't any whistleblower with credibility come forward? It really verges on 9/11 conspiracy nonsense.

 

Why bother? Nobody would be "credible enough" to convince the liberals that people are manipulating climatological data. It's been proven that it's been done in the past, but enough to convince a liberal? It will never be. So why bother?

 

Data Homogenization is a pretty standard statistical method for eliminating outliers caused by variability you do not intend to measure. Such as differences arising from different elevations. This of course was the answer you were given days ago. I'm sorry you do not accept the answer as being legit. But you really don't have the qualifications or the statistical know-how to challenge it. Most everyone who does have the know-how sees nothing wrong with it.

For more information see here:
http://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/science/no-bureau-meteorology-not-fiddling-its-weather-data

This kind of vast misunderstanding of how scientific statistics work is completely the result of mistrust of the experts and for some reason a complete trust in any media or blog source that disagrees with the experts. This is data that's freely available and definitely challenge by anyone in the scientific community. Why would you think some moron with a blog knows better than scientists?

But I'm sure having the facts displayed in front of you will have no effect. You'll continue to believe the blogs and the tabloids over the scientists. Feel free to stroke your ego.

 

Yeah. Screw liberals for seeking scientific credentials from people discussing a scientific topic.

 

Yes and when those liberals ignore any scientific data that doesn't support their chicken little data, they become irrelevant. Scientific data is only relevant if it is ALL observed and analyzed.

 

I keep saying this and I'll say it again.

Which makes more sense?

A bunch of environmentalists and non-profit research groups pulled together their limited funds that rely almost completely on grants and donations to bribe 90%+ of climate scientists into telling a massive lie to the people of the world (All while publicly displaying their data and offering it up for people to challenge) in order to convince the world to buy more solar panels for some unknown reason...

Or large oil and coal companies have been using their massive profits to bribe whoever they can to sew doubt in the media and play on a general distrust of the government and of the scientific elite to keep people buying the products that give them their billions.

 

When that Homogenization takes raw data from good stations and changes it based on stations 300 miles away with more problems to change a cooling trend to a warming trend as has happened in Australia then there is something wrong.

 

It would be nice if anyone actually posted scientific data. As in data from a scientific journal where the scientists that did the research concluded AGW does not exist. It would be real nice if the deniers were using data like that.

Instead they use cherry picked data from research that made the complete opposite conclusion than the hair brained stuff the bloggers come up with.

- - - Updated - - -

The scientific community doesn't seem to have a problem with it.

 

Typical reaction to the science that does not support CAGW. The problem here is not science but politics which you have bought into, hook, line, and sinker.

 

I have seen credible reports lately detailing the growth of the polar ice on both the North Pole and the South Pole.
Not a lessening or diminishment, but a profound growth.

Here is my two cent's worth, and this coming from a man of science;

When science is objective and unbiased,
and the data are obtained in an objective, scientific, non-partisan fashion,
and the conclusions derived from those experiments and analysis are pure and honest,
then you end up with credible conclusions and recommendations from that science.

On the other hand, when science is biased and founded in political objectives,
and the data are obtained in a partisan, unscientific fashion,
and the conclusions derived from those experiments and analysis are cooked, partial, and heavily edited by non-scientists,
then you end up with nonsensical conclusions and politically-motivated recommendations from that junk science.

I respect good science, I really do.
I have no used for junk science.

And I really have no use for governments engaging in over-taxation,
the purposeful punishment of taxpayers and corporations alike,
and absurd 'green initiatives'
founded in that same junk science.

 

Have you ever linked to a peer reviewed source on climate change that reached any sort of conclusion that agreed with your argument?

 

Really? I have not seen a single credible scientific journal state that the polar ice is experience a growth trend. Quite the opposite in fact. Are you sure you didn't just read an article that said the ice this year was more than the ice in 2012? Because that's not a trend. That's just year to year variability.

 

I understand, Bill.
My dinner preparations take priority just this moment, but I will get back to you later on this evening with the references you request.

Please bear in mind that what I read may not be yet published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and may be a news reports detailing recent scientific observations, measurements, and field reports. The actual journal articles could take months, if I recall how these things work.

Forgive my stepping away from the computer for a while. I am the cook of the house, and my family is getting hungry and restless.
I will get back to you shortly though, sir.

 

Many, but as usual, those steeped in the religion never read them and ask the same question over and over again.

 

Not sure why people fight the GW so damn much.

EVEN..Even if it isn't true, so what? cutting emissions is still a way to go.

Pollution has been significantly cut since the 70's.

MPG has increased nicely in many vehicles, hell my Equinox gets around 32 mpg, had it been made in the 80's mpg would have likely been 20 - 25 mpg.

This foolish idea that we can pollute water, soil and air simply to make money without repercussions is laughable.