Slashdot Mirror
This October Was the Hottest Ever Measured (scienceblogs.com)
GregLaden writes: Scientists track the global surface temperature, an average of readings from thermometers at approximately head height, and an estimate of sea surface temperatures, in order to track global warming. Over the last year or so we have been seeing many record-breaking months. Now, both the Japan Meteorological Agency and NASA have identified October as an extraordinary month. October 2016 is significantly warmer than any other in the NASA record, which goes back to 1880.
News at 11.
(Oh, and trying to stop it is like trying to stop the Earth from rotating)
"Scientists track the global surface temperature, an average of readings from thermometers at approximately head height, and an estimate of sea surface temperatures, in order to track global warming. "
There hasn't been thermometers at approximately head height all over the world until about 8 years ago. In addition, the "estimate" of sea surface temperatures are done by models. And models have been proven to be complete utter bunk. How would they possibly have "estimated" what sea surface temperatures were from the 1880s? Therefore the conclusions reached are complete nonsense.
Although I 100% agree with AGW, the science is suspect.
Which part of the statement "This October Was the Hottest Ever Measured" is the uah data supposed to completely "lack of correlation" with? When I look at the global temperature in the uah data (http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt , Globe column) and take only October (month=10), I see that October 2015 is indeed the warmer, with a delta of 0.57 degC with 1981-2010, where the previous warmest were 2012 and 2014 with 0.37 each.
It's relatively difficult to see that in your plot, as you give a plot with all temperatures, including October and the other 11 months of the year.
Quite frankly, I start to get pissed. Ok, folks, from both sides of the fence, please tell me why. Why would the "other side" lie, and lie so vehemently to start something that is nothing short of a religious war by now?
What's in it for you, specifically? I can see why corporations would fight accepting human created climate change tooth and nail considering that emission control is coming up right behind such an admission. What do you have to gain or lose from siding with whatever side you're not on that you go into full blown shitstorm mode whenever the topic comes up?
And this is by far not the only topic that gets people worked up. What the fuck is wrong with you? Have no problems so you have to create some to get worked up about, so you feel like you still exist?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Those filthy rich scientists, awash in money. Yes, they're the problem. Greedy goddamn climate scientists and their grubby-handed grad student research assistants. Living like kings while the honest energy industry has to scratch out a subsistence with nothing but hard work and grit.
I'll tell you, this world is upside-down.
You are welcome on my lawn.
You can't answer THAT, scientists.
...is Slashdot going to post this crap once a month proclaiming that interpolated, estimated, revised, and combined data sets show each moth is the Hottest Eeeevurr!!
Lets get real here people, they've polluted the data so badly they can't even provide the original, unedited data. NOAA essentially threw out high quality, well calibrated data collected from purpose built devices by combining it with low quality, uncontrolled data from ships. Image if some drug company took data derived from blood samples measuring a drug level and decided they needed to "adjust" it with samples taken from urine.
Agenda driven Science is what it is.
Climate Science has a big problem. That is that they can't seem to come up with a theory that is falsifiable. At first, they said if the pause continues for 10 years then it might mean something. Then, as ten years approached, they changed to twenty years. Now, as we approach 20 years, some are suggesting 50 years. Others are trying their best to just make the cause go away. BTW, out of 5 major studies on the Pause, only one, NOAA, claimed the Pause doesn't exist.
Here is an example of your typical Climate Science paper.
Money Shot:
However, internal climate variability creates irreducible uncertainty in the projected future trends in snow resource potential, with about 90% of snow-sensitive basins showing potential for either increases or decreases over the near-term decades.
So, it will snow more, or it will snow less. Either way, Climate Changes is the cause.
How can anyone take this seriously?