Slashdot Mirror

You don't know. You've made it clear you don't know. You have no background in this area. Any bet you made if you win it would clearly be dumb luck.
I think it's humorous that you use Dr. Spencer.

Back to the bet, you're well on your way to losing this one. Check out the data here - https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc... . You probably have no idea why I think you're well on your way to losing this bet. BTW, I didn't even bother to look at any of the data for this year until tonight. It's too early, even for someone that thinks they know everything. So unless you're from the future, you don't know. I don't believe in time travel.

Whether it is from increased temperature or acidification, I don't really know.

Well, it could also be from nitrogen run off, or other local factors separate from temperature or a slight change in pH.

http://www.reefresilience.org/...

That all being said, coral bleaching isn't an unprecedented phenomenon, and in fact, corals regularly recover from such events:

http://www.theguardian.com/env...

The key statement you've got here is "you don't know", and if you can hold that thought in your head, you'll do yourself a favor :)

we expect that at the poleward ends of the Hadley cells to generally get drier.

Pure speculation - we've got a sparse dataset polluted by modeled data that is purely imaginary:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/p...

"The NCEP/ NCAR reanalysis data is not a purely observed data set. It is a mix of real observations with model simulations using the method of temporal and spatial assimilation in an atmospheric general circulation model (AGCM). Insofar as different data platforms have been used in construction of the reanalysis, long-term trends calculated from it may be non-physical."

We have programmed a model that hard codes generally drier poleward ends of Hadley cells - we don't have sufficient observational data to state that this has already happened, or will happen in the future, under any conditions.

It's our inability to accurately predict the consequences that is most worrying. Uncertainty is not our friend.

Agreed - and we must admit that we have the same inability to predict the consequences of increased human CO2 emissions as we have the consequences of dramatically reducing human CO2 emissions. Uncertainty is not our friend, but it is our constant companion, and all of our choices, even the ones we prefer, are subject to its whims.

Here's the data:

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/da...

There are gaps of up to hundreds of years between measurements.

Exactly which "results" do you think are better than NOAA's high resolution ice core series?

AGW Theory makes a specific prediction, that the Tropical Lower Troposphere will warm faster than the surface. The opposite is seen. Thus, the AGW hypothesis is invalidated by observational reality. The Scientific Method requires you to accept the Null Hypothesis instead. Will you follow the Scientific Method, or not?

Oh - look, the lawyer approach. Just give a yes or no answer, Olsoc! Sorry muchacho, but you are attempting to argue old data. The tropsphere is indeed warming, and th stratosphere is indeed cooling, just as the models predict. The discrepancy that you attempt to use as a false dilemma no longer exists. For your reading enjoyment - if you dare!: http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibli...

By the way, do you recognize one of those names? He is J. R. Christy, the hero of the denialists. Do you deny your his veracity? If you deny it now, do you deny his earlier "proof"?

For thos who are not familiar, Christy is the radiosonde guy who interpreted the discrepancies as a refutation of AGW.

You see, that is the issue with models. They often need tweaked, and when discrepancies are found, scientists work to find out why any discrepancies existed. In this case, there was an issue with the taken data.

.

So your outdated and incorrect data (actually discrepancies in the measurements) has been corrected, and you are trying to argue with bad data. Not science, and we no longer consider the discrepancy valid. You might as well try to argue for the Phlogiston theory.

The question is, will you follow the computer simulations of the IPCC, or will you accept observational reality and follow the Scientific Method to accept the Null Hypothesis instead of the failed predictions of AGW ?

Actually a better question is - will you? Your data is outdated, and bad. the producer of your dat agrees that the data is now lacking discrepancies, and the expected increases in temperature exist - he says so.

So will you accept the same thing you demand of me? A months wages say you won't, and you have no intention of ever doing so.

Pretty much every point is summed up here

All of the above climate info in the op is extremely basic. I'm surprised you haven't seen any sources of this. And no the earth has never seen this rapid climate change except perhaps from extinction event impacts, basically the entire point of this article. I know, no one reads these.

Fair point. I happened to be looking at costco TVs and used the marketing lingo, my apologies :)

So instead of an analogy, let's just go straight to the meat of the matter:

Today, we get CO2 measurements hourly.

Here's what the ice cores give us:

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/da...

Calculating the difference between hourly measurements, and measurements with gaps of up to hundreds of years between them is left as an exercise for the reader :)

Have you looked at *any* of the science regarding proxy measurements of CO2?

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/da...

That's not 4K resolution, that's a cave painting. Today, we can measure CO2 on an hourly basis. The ice core record has gaps of more than a hundred years at a time.

This isn't whether or not anyone is faking data - this is whether or not the proxy has enough resolution to tell you anything about the rate of change on the order of 150 years.

QCFLAG: quality control flag, seven possibilities within quality controlled unadjusted (qcu) dataset, and 2 possibilities within the quality controlled adjusted (qca) dataset. Quality Controlled Unadjusted (QCU) QC Flags: BLANK = no failure of quality control check or could not be evaluated. D = monthly value is part of an annual series of values that are exactly the same (e.g. duplicated) within another year in the station's record. etc.

Processed data shows less warming than raw data: https://criticalangleblog.file...

NOAA data is available here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-...

iggymanz the troll apparently needs to be spoonfed. Not that I expect you're actually capable of deducing anything useful from this, but here's a link to the complet version 3 of the Global Historical Climatology Network Monthly temperature dataset (there are daily etc. variants also available). Want to know what that means? I doubt you actually do, you lame troll, but here's another link to a FAQ

iggymanz the troll apparently needs to be spoonfed. Not that I expect you're actually capable of deducing anything useful from this, but here's a link to the complet version 3 of the Global Historical Climatology Network Monthly temperature dataset (there are daily etc. variants also available). Want to know what that means? I doubt you actually do, you lame troll, but here's another link to a FAQ

Those fossil fuels are in the ground so humans can find them and make energy to feed themselves, cure diseases, and make Earth a better place. Leaving the fossil fuels in the ground when we can make the Earth a better place is morally wrong. The real temperature record shows that the Earth isn't getting warmer and the "warming" is a result of adjustments to the data. Here's a NOAA website that describes the raw data and the adjustments: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html#QUAL. Specifically, here is the difference between the adjusted data and the raw data: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif. There's little adjustment to temperatures early in the record, but the recent data is adjusted upward greatly. The warming in the data is actually a result of the adjustments, otherwise the record would be nearly flat. We're not causing the Earth to get warmer, and it really isn't warming. For this reason, I see no reason to leave the fossil fuels in the ground when they can produce cheap energy. It would be wrong to refuse to use the resources that can improve quality of life.

Those fossil fuels are in the ground so humans can find them and make energy to feed themselves, cure diseases, and make Earth a better place. Leaving the fossil fuels in the ground when we can make the Earth a better place is morally wrong. The real temperature record shows that the Earth isn't getting warmer and the "warming" is a result of adjustments to the data. Here's a NOAA website that describes the raw data and the adjustments: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html#QUAL. Specifically, here is the difference between the adjusted data and the raw data: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif. There's little adjustment to temperatures early in the record, but the recent data is adjusted upward greatly. The warming in the data is actually a result of the adjustments, otherwise the record would be nearly flat. We're not causing the Earth to get warmer, and it really isn't warming. For this reason, I see no reason to leave the fossil fuels in the ground when they can produce cheap energy. It would be wrong to refuse to use the resources that can improve quality of life.

What the FUCK are you talking about? All the numbers have been released in copious detail over and over, as well as the sources for their models/trend estimators. Stop fucking lying you ignorant jackass. Here's the NOAA data for January (the second hottest on record) if you're actually serious.

"tonyheller" claims NOAA is omitting data from the graph on page 10 to hide it. "Here is why they are hiding the rest of the data." This is obviously NOT TRUE because satellite data doesn't go back before 1979 and the radiosonde is being compared with the satellite data in the graphs. "tonyheller" is either stupid or intentionally attempting to mislead his readers. Look for yourself: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/...

"tonyheller" CLEARLY has an agenda. Why would you listen to anything else he says after his failure demonstrates either a) incompetence in technical analysis or b) deceit to support an agenda What else could it be?

"I will never believe government climatologists, they obviously have an agenda, it's not true science." Who do you believe and why? Have you considered that it's not just the scientists in the United States government claiming AWG is happening? Practically every reputable scientific organization on the planet makes the same claim. Do you consider a world wide collusion of scientists even possible? And for what? Grants?

As for government climatologists, there's not much capitalist motive to study climate. Government is one of few entities that exist more than 50 years, the minimum time required to study climate change. I think the people spouting don't believe government scientists know this and realize this leaves people with "not enough untainted data" to make a decision. Uncertainty and delay is their goal.

There are a few non-government entities that have an interest in climate and have been around long enough to accumulate and study data. Exxon Mobil admits AGW is a real threat. http://corporate.exxonmobil.co...

I just read that article and found a serious problem with it. It claims NOAA is "hiding" the data because they don't include all of the radiosonde going back to 1950. But on page 10 of the NOAA presentation, http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/... the radiosonde data is being compared to SATELLITE data. I'm pretty sure the satellite data doesn't go back to 1950. In addition, the NOAA data "in question" is a short, executive summary type presentation (11 pages in all), not a rigorous peer targeted work. It's hilarious that he's taking on an 11 page power point slide as evidence the NOAA is "defrauding the public".

"The omission of this data from the NOAA report, is just their latest attempt to defraud the public." What an idiot.

Shame on everyone here parroting this junk. Turn in your geek card.

Seriously... who is sitting in the middle of 17 below zero weather and going "this should really be a good 10 degrees colder"...

Scientists, meteorologists, and anyone who cares to look at historical averages...

I know I know... Polar bears... To which I can only respond with a mixture of yawns and skepticism that the polar bears really can't handle things being slightly warmer given that they have in the past, they do just fine in the summer when it is dramatically warmer, and no one has yet found any polar bears that have suffered from heat exhaustion in their native habitat. So I'm calling bullshit on that score.

It's the inability to catch an eat food in the winter which threatens polar bear populations. A lack of Arctic sea ice makes it more difficult for them to hunt and feed in winter. The populations closest to humans are the most likely to adapt to global warming because they are less reliant on sea ice.

As to AGW issues in general... all things considered, I rather suspect that on balance, humans are going to be happier with a warmer world than a colder one.

In the long run, maybe, if we don't heat things up too far and too fast. We could run into severe problems if we exceed the maximum optimum temperature for the vegetation we currently have (which is around 4 degrees above the pre-industrial temperature). There a significant risk that in the business as usual scenario we may exceed that value, and reach up to almost double that level of warming. Without a massive infusion of new, genetically engineered crops, we'd be facing severely degraded crop yields in most of the world's primary agricultural lands. Either way, that would likely lead to large increases in the cost of food.

Considering that one the primary driving forces of instability in the "Arab spring" is the cost of food, we could expect to see a lot more political instability in a warming world.

Here someone might say "but the equator will get hotter too!"... except according to GW theory it won't actually. The poles will heat up a bit but the equator shouldn't move much.

That's pretty much correct, except the equator will still warm a slower rate than the temperate regions and the poles will warm at a faster rate than the temperature regions.

Then someone might say "but the oceans will rise!"... I'm a bit dubious there as well. The oceans have been rising at a fair clip for thousands of years. The rate of rise doesn't appear to have changed remarkably.

Actually, I think you're wrong here. The NOAA, for instances, says that ocean levels were pretty stable until the start of the 20th century.

And even if did... and we got the full 60 meters or whatever... it wouldn't happen quickly. Human populations move around.

The sea level rise doesn't happen quickly, but the effects will mostly be seen during natural disasters when previously safe areas are flooded for the first time, and between natural disasters when additional taxes must be levied to protect people from the sea rise by building barriers to protect low lying areas, and finally when those protection are catastrophically breached.

I'm not seeing any of the AGW evangelists buying inland property and selling their beach houses. So I take all the doom and gloom out of such people as demonstrably insincere.

How would you know? It's only news if they buy something that seems hypocritical (or can be spun that way by Rupert Murdoch's media holdings).

But to imply that the last 15 years have all been the 15 hottest on record is ridiculous.

Well unless you have data that says otherwise I'll stick with the NOAA data than your gut feel. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc...

As though we never had a single warm year in the 1990s or earlier, or a single cold year in the last 15

This is the part where you'll need to produce real data, otherwise you sound like you're just making stuff up.

This is exactly the kind if alarmist bullshit that deniers can clamp on to. This screams bad science.

You know science isn't based on what feels right? If that's what the data says, then that's what it says.

Don't fall into that trap. Don't present obviously skewed data when the real data will show a clear enough pattern.

I'm not presenting anything, I'll leave that to the experts. And the experts says this is so.

But to imply that the last 15 years have all been the 15 hottest on record is ridiculous. As though we never had a single warm year in the 1990s or earlier, or a single cold year in the last 15 (the phrase Polar Vortex comes to mind.)

You are correct that it is ridiculous to suggest the top years are all from the past 15 years. According to the NOAA, the actual years in order are:

2015, 2014, 2010, 2013, 2005, 1998, 2009, 2012, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2002, 2004, 2011, (tie: 2001 & 2008)

As you can see, the original poster forgot about 1998 (which tied with 2009 at 6th place), thus blowing his entire argument out of the water. So out of the 16 years listed (since #15 was a tie with #16), there was one year that is not from the previous 15 years. Actually, now that I think about it perhaps it isn't quite as alarmist as you might think.

Without evaluating this particular statement about radiosondes, I don't place a whole lot of credibility in what he says. This is based on his reputation. It doesn't guarantee that Goddard is wrong, but it means his claims should be viewed with more skepticism than someone with a better record on climate change issues.

Let us keep in mind that Goddard's "Debunking" of AGW isn't even based on surface temperatures.

And what is interesting is that instead of him asking "Why", he just decided My dat is right, everyone elses is wrong."

Ain't necessarily so. http://journals.ametsoc.org/do...

Goddard has been thorougly debunked and quite often:

http://rankexploits.com/musing...

https://www.skepticalscience.c...

http://reallysciency.blogspot....

https://rhinohide.wordpress.co...

We can read an actual paper about his issue : https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibl...

Enough of this stuff. It won't change any deniers minds even if they continue to spew long debunked Proofs of their position.

That depends on the country. Most would say no. You could check with DHS. As I understand it, if you brought an armed ship within the US EEZ (200 nautical miles), you would find out that it isn't exactly welcome.

Simple breakdown chart

A NOAA breakdown of distances from shore with brief descriptions of each zone.

How hard did you look ? http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ghcnm...

Satellite altimeter radar measurements from TOPEX/Poseidon, Jason-1, and Jason-2 satellites have been measuring sea level rise for decades: http://www.star.nesdis.noaa.go...

Since 9/11, American deaths by terror have averaged about 12 per year worldwide. That puts terrorism right up there with lightning strikes.

Even if there were a 9/11 class attack in the US every year, it wouldn't hold a candle to drunk driving deaths. -- but drunk driving deaths don't make the news because they're so common. It's the fallacy of the news cycle -- to be national news it has to be rare. More common threats of tragic death don't make the news because they've become so blase.

If we're going to have our civil rights watered down, it should, at the very least, be because of a real threat. The courts should be asked to set aside the news reports and demand that the FBI quantify the reality of the threat compared to normal everyday issues. If apple is forced to create this app, the app and it's ilk are going to creep into everyday use by law enforcement and other entities -- here, Russia, China, Iran, Syria and pretty much every dictatorship you can think of.

Would you consider it justified to force Apple to create this app and set this precedent to investigate a drunk driver?? Even though a drunk driver is far more of a threat to you and your family? It's time to put this whole terrorism hysteria into proper perspective. We shouldn't continue to allow it to be used to nibble away at our freedoms until there is nothing left -- especially for a 'threat' that is more of a PR issue than a statistical reality.

At this point we are at around 1.8 watts per square meter of radiative forcing. Let's go with rounding and call it 1000 Terawatts.

Here's more recent data:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/a...

Nice link, thanks.

the minute amount of extra energy won't really matter though, that's the point. The sea won't rise two feet in one day, and those "poor natives" on islands essentially at sea level were going to be under water anyway in 400 years if not the next 75. alarmist nonsense like the impossible scenarios Al Gore presented just hurt the cause of doing anything meaningful about pollution

Tell us - how much is that "minute amount of extra energy"? Whatever handy unit of measurements, and don't spare us the big words.

The best estimate for the current radiative forcing due to anthropogenic trace gasses, according to the IPCC AR4, is 1.6 Watts per square meter (with a range of uncertainty from 0.6 to 2.4). http://news.mit.edu/2010/expla...

Whether that is "tiny" or not depends on what you call "tiny".

That is 800 Terawatts of extra energy stored in the atmosphere.

At this point we are at around 1.8 watts per square meter of radiative forcing. Let's go with rounding and call it 1000 Terawatts.

Here's more recent data: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/a...

That's pretty significant in my book.

You will notice a large increase over the period. Satellites measure the troposphere though. That isn't really what sea level responds to. Take a look at ocean heat content over the period: https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/... .

Not saying the seas aren't warming from other factors, but it seems counter-intuitive to assume that adding glacial / ice meltwater would be a factor for sea temperature increase.

They are not saying that one is the result of the other. Rather the oceans are warming for the same reason that the ice is melting. https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/...

And that all the models to date have proven woefully poor and inadequate at their predictions. Showing that their understanding is far from complete.

Or maybe your understanding of what climate models do is too woefully poor and inadequate for you to judge how well they do.

Regarding the surfacestations.org cite in your subsequent post you should read this paper [PDF] that uses the surfacestations list of poorly sited weather stations to test the compensation for UHI effects in the temperature record. It found that the adjustments for poorly sited weather stations actually have a slight cooling bias compared to well sited weather stations.

Funny how when its extra cold (snow storms, record cold winters, etc) all we hear is 'weather is not climate'. However when its extra hot, is seems weather is climate?

Just to avoid the 'but that doesnt happen!' here we have one: http://drsircus.com/world-news...

Umm, who exactly makes that argument that you are talking about? You are saying weather is climate, and you are cherry picking one area to do it from. Here is NOAA's global data. Rather different from your "Coldest month evah!" so there is no such thing as global warming.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/...

Even the fact that 2015 was a global record setter - that doesn't prove that the world is getting warmer. That's just one year. That's weather. But there is a trend of many warmer than normal years, and that is indicating climate.

Not arguing a side here, just pointing out one of many many obvious logical faults both sides seem to have.

It astounds me how high these extremes at both ends of this argument have climbed up their pedestals.

Here, let me get you started... A nice climate archive to start https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-... If you want to do some validation checking you can go through all the individual stations and check the data. One place is: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data... Another if you don't trust NOAA and want the absolute rawest data: http://mesowest.utah.edu/ Some of your questions on why certain corrections were made are explained here: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/moni... And I find it incredibly sad that you think very little science has been done. That couldn't be further from the truth. Take the time to read some papers and do some of your own independent research.

Here, let me get you started... A nice climate archive to start https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-... If you want to do some validation checking you can go through all the individual stations and check the data. One place is: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data... Another if you don't trust NOAA and want the absolute rawest data: http://mesowest.utah.edu/ Some of your questions on why certain corrections were made are explained here: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/moni... And I find it incredibly sad that you think very little science has been done. That couldn't be further from the truth. Take the time to read some papers and do some of your own independent research.

Here, let me get you started... A nice climate archive to start https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-... If you want to do some validation checking you can go through all the individual stations and check the data. One place is: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data... Another if you don't trust NOAA and want the absolute rawest data: http://mesowest.utah.edu/ Some of your questions on why certain corrections were made are explained here: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/moni... And I find it incredibly sad that you think very little science has been done. That couldn't be further from the truth. Take the time to read some papers and do some of your own independent research.

How many near consecutive broken records does it take for weather extremes to no longer be called 'anomalies'?

The "anomaly" is defined as the difference in temperature from the reference baseline. Even if that difference were zero, it would still be called the temperature anomaly-- it would be an anomaly of zero.

FAQ: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/moni...

Go to IPCC 5th Assessment report, chapter 9, page 28, graph (a) Observed and CHIMP5 Simulated Global Mean Surface Air Temperature, you'll see that there is at least a .3C difference between the CHIMP5 model mean and HADCrut4 and GISTEMP. Most consider the period of 1951 to 1980 to be the global average temperature baseline which has a value of 14 degrees Celsius and 2015 has warmed a supposed 0.98C that gives 0.3/0.98*100= 30.6% error!

I have problems excepting a 30% errors as predictive value

Wow, first I have to say, your catachresis is absolutely brilliant. "I can't accept the error, because it would except the error."

The quoted error bars on the climate prediction are plus or minus 50 percent. So, you are just saying that the quoted error bars mimic the difference in models.

Yep. The graph you refer to compares the results of 40 cases from 23 different models. The overall trend is clear-- up-- but different models vary on how much.

When people agree with the science of global warming, that is not excepted: the error bars are part of the science.

Go to IPCC 5th Assessment report, chapter 9, page 28, graph (a) Observed and CHIMP5 Simulated Global Mean Surface Air Temperature, you'll see that there is at least a .3C difference between the CHIMP5 model mean and HADCrut4 and GISTEMP. Most consider the period of 1951 to 1980 to be the global average temperature baseline which has a value of 14 degrees Celsius and 2015 has warmed a supposed 0.98C that gives 0.3/0.98*100= 30.6% error!

I have problems excepting a 30% errors as predictive value

It would help if any of the climate models demonstrated some degree of predictive ability. The difference between model projections and reality have grown to ridiculous proportions.

Let's look at that. The very first numerical greenhouse effect model was Manabe and Wetherald 1967-- That's the classic, the model from which pretty much all current climate models stem. Since the paper was submitted in 1966, that's 50 years ago-- definitely long enough to see how well the prediction worked. They predicted that the climate sensitivity to CO2 (assuming constant relative humidity) was 2.3C. Comparing that to the actual carbon dioxide, for the rise from 320 ppm to 400 ppm (here) using the Arrhenius relation, we get 0.74C for the temperature rise from 1966 to 2015. The measured temperature rise (here) is 0.7C, with the error bars in the figure 0.1C.

Looks like not merely a good prediction, but an outstandingly accurate prediction.

For comparison, the current IPCC 5th Assessment report estimate of sensitivity is that it is the range 1.5C to 4.5C with "high confidence", so Manabe and Wetherald's value of 2.3 is still is the range of current estimates.

People from NASA in this interview disagree about the risks. So does NOAA, and if you look further, so does the DOT. It's not benign.

No superfund site has been created for activities that has taken place after 1986. The private sector simply doesn't operate that way anymore.

That is entirely unknown. They are still adding locations so they may just not have gotten to them yet. Full disclosure: I have not fully researched this topic, my conclusions are based on the fact that sites are still being added, and incidents like this mine spill and these leaks and these incidents. The latter was only not a fund candidate because a) company had significant resources and b) cleanup needed to happen asap.

Co2 most definitely is born by the private sector. Almost all negative aspects if any are actually measurable are realized through reduced costs of products and lowered land values (most of which is controlled or owned by the rich who can afford the losses ).

You are partially correct, the costs are born by the land owners, many of whom are not rich, as they don't hold the mineral rights. Perhaps you should take a good look at the issues around fracking wells and who bears the cost. Here's a hint, it's not the company and in many cases not the land owners that are affected.

Meanwhile, back in reality, NOAA provides the raw data right on their web site: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data...

Erm,I know what I'm talking about.

Maybe, but when you spout nonsense like:

The measure certain stuff using other satellites radiation/emissions etc.

Why are we supposed to believe you. The NOAA MSA and AMSU instruments measure microwave emissions from oxygen, they do not use "other satellites radiation/emissions etc".

Then you continue with:

How exactly is a clock that measures how a satellite radio signal is slowed down through the atmosphere depending on moisture and temperature 'degrading'

The NOAA satellites don't have "a clock that measures how a satellite radio signal is slowed down through the atmosphere depending on moisture and temperature"

Then you bring up GPS:

The GPS satellites don't 'degrade' but the satellites measuring their signals, do?

Then you make the unsupported assertion:

neither are those instruments nor measurements degrading nor are they perfect.

We know the instruments are not perfect, look at the problems with the "hot target" for example.

As for not degrading, you might like to check out the NOAA status page.

For example:

12/16/2008 00:00:00 MetOp-2 AMSU-A1 Channel 7 degradation began violating specifications beginning 12/16.2008.

Conclusion: You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

No Airports are really bad places to measure Climatological data, there is way too much concrete and asphalt to get reliable temperature and thermometers are even hit with jet engine exhaust! Airport thermometers are placed to report aviation related data, what's the air temp over the runway is what counts when your flying jet passenger planes.

The good stuff is U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN) , but Climatologist avoid it because they can't justify pulling shenanigans with adjustments.

Yes, I'm an overweight white guy who grew up in the northern USA. I'm currently living in Southeast Asia and if I'm outdoors during the day (i.e. without air-conditioning) for more than a few hours then I start to get heat stroke.

During the day the temperature typically gets up to a degree or two above 30C (high 80s Fahrenheit) - which doesn't sounds too bad. But the humidity is almost always well above 80% - which puts it into the "Danger" zone of the heat index. The Danger zone means "heat cramps or heat exhaustion likely, and heat stroke possible with prolonged exposure and/or physical activity".

I assume that the researchers have already been thinking along those lines. But it would definitely be worth exploring whether there was particularly high heat and humidity in that part of the world at that time.

Based on this source, it sounds more like we were right near the middle of the last glacial period: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/pale...

"The most recent glacial period occurred between about 120,000 and 11,500 years ago"

My apologies, this ended up being way longer than I anticipated it would be. However I think it's all important.

First let me start of by saying - yes, things are getting warmer. They've been getting warmer for over thousands of years with some brief cold spells. Check out sea water rise here - http://www.giss.nasa.gov/resea... . So this is far and beyond man if you look at the scale in years. Another sign they're wrong - put people in jail - http://www.newsweek.com/should... . Some might call this typical leftist fascism. I was a bit surprised, I googled - "global warming skeptics in jail". No free speech, other than what they want. Where have we heard that before?

Bullshit. There is a mountain of proof - even though because you can't even begin to understand it you are suspicious.

Mountain of proof. So you should have no trouble showing me this mountain. Science isn't hard. There's the scientific method. I have no doubt you're familiar with it, I'll include it here for other people just as my comment before about moding me down was to other people - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... .
Here are recent co2 levels - http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/c...
Here we have them trying to explain a decade of problems - https://www.climate.gov/news-f...
Then we have the hottest decade in the 20th century - the 1930s. This was embarrassing to Mr. Hansen (Mr. MMGW himself) as he had to admit he lied, of course he blamed it on a y2k error (it was a mistake, not a lie!) - when he claimed the 1990s where the hottest decade of the 20th century. I called full BULSHIT on that. I don't understand how a y2k bug could change his data and I'm a guy that used to fix those problems.

Don't say I don't understand it, it's likely you don't understand it. The above concerns break the scientific method, therefore it's almost certain it's not CO2 causing it. Not with a big rise in CO2 and when temperatures stop rising. Remember Algore's prediction that we'd be roasting in Washington DC in 2015 with desert like temperatures? Yea, not so much. Same old hot summers we've always had. Remember his predictions about more and stronger hurricanes after Katrina? Yea, not so much either. I bet he would be howling if Hog Island happened today - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... Remember "Super Storm Sandy", yea, what crap. It was just a run of the mill hurricane. Nothing super about sandy.

As for the scientists - good luck conducting a study that disproves MMGW. Right now you're about as likely to get a grant proving that as say (not that I believe this, to illustrate the point - ) white people are superior to black people. That is, forget about it and don't come back. Only people that look at the data and say - hey, wait a minute. The bitch is, I may convince you and I've convinced hundreds over the years. They are making true believers every day in schools.

We do, for example, know that CO2 is a gas which does cause heat to be trapped in our atmosphere. As far as I know, aside from you and a small group of moronic skeptics, no one is saying otherwise.

A lot of people conclude when you resort to name calling, you've lost the argument. Otherwise, you'd state your case instead of calling someone names. Just so you know. Did you know there are definitions of what a moron, idiot, imbecile are? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... .

It's not a small group, otherwise Kyoto, Paris, etc would have proceeded a whole lo

See below for NOAA's time series / histogram chart for the list of years in their record, going back to 1880. There are separate tabs for US & Global

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/t...

You can sort the table by year, temp anomaly or rank.

More heat in the climate system or more warm tropical water are only a couple of several key factors in the formation of cyclones.
Another is the absence of wind shear. If one of the outcomes of a warming world in greater wind shear where hurricanes & cyclones form, then the trend will be towards fewer really large storms.

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/keyno...

FYI, honest question here. Why is NOAA so insistent on only releasing data by anomaly and not by actual temperature?

Because the average temperature isn't actually interesting, and not actually terribly useful.

If you want the global average temperature, just calculate the global average temperature of the baseline year, and add the anomaly relative to that baseline year. As should be obvious, the global average temperature is just a baseline shifting the whole curve up or down, and it's simplest to just subtract it out, unless there's some reason you want that absolute number-- and I can't think of any reason you would want that average number.

Different people calculate the average in different ways. The NASA data has the global temperature average in 2013 at 14.6 degrees Celsius-- that would be a good value to use. (If 2013 isn't your baseline year, subtract the anomaly for 2013 to convert to the baseline year you do use-- it's just a baseline shift; the whole curve shifts by the same amount.)

By only looking at the difference from the baseline, you leave out all of the errors that aren't there if you only are looking at the change in temperature at each location, not the absolute temperature.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/moni...
https://notalotofpeopleknowtha...
http://ete.cet.edu/gcc/?/globa...
http://www.odlt.org/dcd/ballas...

Trying to find a "top ten" list of the hottest and coldest years. Can't find it on NOAA's website. Anyone?

Here's a page that has a table that ranks the years from 1880 to 2014 with 1 being the coldest and 135 being the warmest. You can suss out the bottom and top ten from it. It doesn't have 2015 yet because the official numbers haven't come out yet but you can bet that 2015 will be ranked 136.

I'll leave this and this here for you.

Further reading if desired. (those are the first 4 links in my search [5th link] - I didn't know why it would hurt either, so I Google'd it.).