Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ground based instruments (used by NOAA/NASA which is the ) since 1979 (which is when satellite data first began as well), has show a decadal trend of +0.17C, while the RSS is +0.13C per decade and the UAH +0.10C
Does anyone here think that ground based thermometers which only measure the temperature at 2 meter above sea level, and are scattered unevenly around the globe, and arguably a large number of them that are not quality controlled are better than satellites that measure large chunks of the lower troposphere?
Furthermore, I am suspicious of the accuracy for the thousands of stations that collect data and stored by the NCDC (arm of NOAA). NASA uses this data to build their GISS temperature record. So I looked at the longest continuously running temperature station for the city of Chicago which is Midway airport. Only problem is that the site opened in 1928. So how did NASA get record data for it prior going back to the 1870's? I know what they did, they merged official station data prior to 1928 with the Midway data. However, the official stations for Chicago where on the lakefront 9 miles away from where the Midway airport site is located. This IS NOT acceptable and I'm 100% sure that this type of error is not an isolated incident.
I don't believe that there is any intentional data manipulation to serve an agenda, but I do think that there are systematic errors within the land based data set that would make them less reliable than that of the satellite measurements.
I don't believe that there is any intentional data manipulation to serve an agenda, but I do think that there are systematic errors within the land based data set that would make them less reliable than that of the satellite measurements.
Well, you can always call NASA and tell them of your concerns.
I totally agree. That's why the AGW hoax is so evil. It diverts money from real pollution clean up efforts.
Really? You do realize how much air and ground pollution comes from burning fossil fuels? Do you not understand that the "solutions" to AGW would also reduce smog, water pollution, and habitat destruction?
If you get a response, you should post it on here.
I've already emailed them. If I get a response I will post it. Even though I already know the answer. They combined multiple sites, there is no other way around it. That is not a true temperature record.
I've already emailed them. If I get a response I will post it. Even though I already know the answer. They combined multiple sites, there is no other way around it. That is not a true temperature record.
Well maybe they should hire you to do everything because you seem to know a lot more about it than they do.
Go start a different thread about it. This thread is about the irony of fake climate science 'skeptics' gullibly swallowing whatever some non-scientist journalist in the trashy tabloid press writes and believing it's debunked 100 years of science and overwhelming evidence. And that 10000s of scientists all over the world are all complicit in some bizarre worldwide conspiracy.
Look in the mirror and start another thread with your new topic. This thread is not even close to being about your post.
According to the climate science deniers, the laws of physics are wrong, the overwhelming evidence for anthropogenic climate change is just made up, 10,000s of peer-reviewed research papers are all wrong, 10,000s of scientists and every science organisation and university worldwide are all liars involved in some massive hoax.
But trashy tabloids are always right and post "The Truth!".
It`s called agenda-driven exaggeration, and the laws of physics are fine.
The problem is what warmers assume, what they overlook and changes made to data based on predicable conflicts with what is erringly assumed and not understood because it has been overlooked.
Huge variables are dismissed by warmers because they add nothing to their claim of settled science.
Cloud cover, water vapor, aerosols, albedo, solar output, carbon black and the diminishing effect of additional CO2 all play a role but you`ll never hear a warmer mention them.
The fact is the Earth has been warming for a long time.
Glaciers have been melting for a long time.
Where I sit there was once an ice sheet two miles high.
Man had nothing to do with it disappearing.
Oceans have been rising at the same rate of 3 mm per year for a long time.
The Bering Land Bridge disappeared 15,500 years ago and is now covered with 50 m of sea water.
Did you even look at the Cowtan videos I provided earlier in the thread? Apparently not, as they encourage people to look at the data themselves and shows how. Something you are now falsely accusing me of not doing.
BTW, Have you ever heard of the non-government independently funded (by the Koch Brothers no less, as well as Microsoft and a few others) Berkeley Earth Surface Temperatures project headed by former 'skeptic' physicist Prof Richard Muller? They've already done an independent review of surface temperature data. And guess what?
I absolutely want experts to review the data. And they have, over and over again- and will continue to do so as new data is found and more refined methods are developed adding to the existing body of science and data. I also absolutely encourage lay people to look at the 'data' themselves - as well as learn enough about the science to understand at least the basics of what they are looking at (and have provided many links in my posts on this topic).
Bearing in mind non-experts need to be aware that they don't have the knowledge and expertise of people who study and do research in the various fields of science for years, and are likely to come across many things they don't understand. When I come across something I don't understand, I'll ask question and research more. I don't automatically assume the experts are all wrong or lying and that I know better than they do or swallow whatever any non-scientist in the tabloid press writes - like fake 'skeptics' do.
Do you know anyone too stupid to read a temperature record?
Got a station in Owasso, MI that was 5 deg F hotter in 1931 than 2014.
Well maybe they should hire you to do everything because you seem to know a lot more about it than they do.
Well aren't you just the clever little smart #$%.
And btw,
Yes government agencies (like NOAA and NASA) can make data errors especially when they rely on thousands of outside sources to provide them the data.
To come up with national temps NOAA/NASA tabulate data from over 9800 weather stations just in the United States alone. Do you actually think that all those stations are free from errors (I have more examples of errors if you want to seem them)? What about global surface thermometers, do you think all countries keep accurate quality controlled temperature stations?
It's much better to just look at satellite data (which still shows warming, just not as much).
Notice the grey areas in the NOAA map? No thermometers. And if you looked at just a land surface map from NOAA you would wonder how they used gridding to fill in those gaps
Looks a little different from the satellite period (I know it's scaled a little different)
Last edited by chicagogeorge; 04-26-2015 at 04:58 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
