Merged Recent climate observations disagreement with projections

Originally Posted by macdoc
..then one dataset is simply immaterial especially one that is .00x off its own record levels....
Click to expand...
This statement clearly shows you have not even bothered to look at the HadSST data. Strange.
Click to expand...

I read the data from the SST and the .00x stands - a tiny amount less than the 1998 peak.....from THIS data set and you still don't know what NASA based their assessement.....

Tired of pointing out the obvious to you for your nitpicking sessions.....

Can I suggest a pause in the stupid and utterly redundant numerous times over questions....:rolleyes:
and comments....

Seems you don't like reality......it's warming, we're mostly responsible.
chew on this

Climate change may trigger earthquakes and volcanoes
Click to expand...

http://www.newscientist.com/article...ge-may-trigger-earthquakes-and-volcanoes.html......:garfield:
 
macdoc said:
I read the data from the SST and the .00x stands - a tiny amount less than the 1998 peak.....
Click to expand...

I see you don't say where you read it from, and for good reason: it was the wrong place.

Check this post, follow the link to the correct HadSST data, and do the math.

Still think the 0.00x stands?

Or do you care to hold to your incorrect position, and morph your FAIL to EPIC FAIL?
 
Last edited:
BenBurch said:
Would it matter what RAW data from one source says if we do not know what analysis and what data sets were considered? Find that out and then you have a basis to discuss the matter further. Back to work here...
Click to expand...

Ben, not sure I understand what you are trying to get across here. Please elaborate if you have time.
 
denidiots wiggle room getting downright tiny....

Four degrees of warming 'likely'
By David Shukman

In a dramatic acceleration of forecasts for global warming, UK scientists say the global average temperature could rise by 4C (7.2F) as early as 2060.

The Met Office study used projections of fossil fuel use that reflect the trend seen over the last 20 years.

Their computer models also factored in new findings on how carbon dioxide is absorbed by the oceans and forests.

The finding was presented at an Oxford University conference exploring the implications of a 4C rise.

The results show a "best estimate" of 4C being reached by 2070, with a possibility that it will come as early as 2060.
Click to expand...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8279654.stm
 
Macdoc must have me on ignore.

No discussion of the HadSST data, and the 0.00x myth.

Just more spamming.

:odie:
 
Wangler said:
Ben, not sure I understand what you are trying to get across here. Please elaborate if you have time.
Click to expand...

We have no idea how NOAA came up with this conclusion. None of the methods or data sets were elaborated, and indeed could include the data set you named. RAW data is subject to a number of calibrations to account for biasing effects and you don't know what biases they accounted for. Until somebody gets them to say what data was used and how it was processed, you have no basis to discuss this matter further unless you want to accuse them of scientific malfeasance.

Now, I have sent off an enquiry about this matter using my press credentials, I would have preferred to do a phone interview, but work precludes that.

I'll let you know what if anything I find.
 
BenBurch said:
We have no idea how NOAA came up with this conclusion. None of the methods or data sets were elaborated, and indeed could include the data set you named. RAW data is subject to a number of calibrations to account for biasing effects and you don't know what biases they accounted for. Until somebody gets them to say what data was used and how it was processed, you have no basis to discuss this matter further unless you want to accuse them of scientific malfeasance.

Now, I have sent off an enquiry about this matter using my press credentials, I would have preferred to do a phone interview, but work precludes that.

I'll let you know what if anything I find.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Ben, for both the explaination, and the inquiry. I know you are busy.

I am certainly not accusing them of scientific malfeasance.

I am rather pointing out a different data set, from a different organization, which shows a different result.

I guess I am just puzzled as to the vigourous defense of the NOAA press release. They said July-August SST was hottest recorded. HadSST says it is not. 'Nuff said.
 
Wangler said:
I am very happy to be able to make the donation to that organization. It will be done this week.
Click to expand...
I chose the wrong one, then. You weren't supposed to like it. :eek:

Thanks for playing, it was fun. :)
Click to expand...
Seriously, though, yes it was. :)

Strange no one's talking about next year yet...

BTW I have a $100 bet with someone on whether the 1998 anomaly (HADCRUT figures) will be exceeded before 2020. :D
 
DogB said:
Did you have something in mind?
Click to expand...
Not really but how about the same as this year: 2010 will have a lower minimum than 2005?

Interesting. I assume you're not convinced about the whole NOA/PDO phase change thing then?
Click to expand...
I'm just betting that the trend will continue upwards and any downward variations won't be enough to stop 1998 being topped. (Of course according to GISS it was already topped by 2005 but we're using HADCRUT). Here's the bet:-

If a global mean temperature anomaly yearly average of 0.526 °C is not exceeded before 1 Jan 2020 according to HADCRUT, I shall pay $100 (USD) into a charity of your choosing and I shall declare that mainstream climate science as it stood in 2009 was mistaken in grossly exaggerating the role of CO2.

If a global mean temperature anomaly yearly average of 0.526 °C is exceeded before 1 Jan 2020 according to HADCRUT, you will pay $100 (USD) into a charity of my choosing and you will declare that mainstream climate science as it stood in 2009 was broadly correct in assessing the role of CO2.
Click to expand...
We have another one for 2030. ;)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom