DescentBB

For you doubters that climate data is being manipulated:

"July 2012 became the hottest month on record in the U.S. during a summer that was declared “too hot to handle” by NASA scientists. That summer more than half the country was experiencing drought and wildfires had scorched more than 1.3 million acres of land, according to NASA."

According to NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in 2012, the “average temperature for the contiguous U.S. during July was 77.6°F, 3.3°F above the 20th century average, marking the warmest July and all-time warmest month on record for the nation in a period of record that dates back to 1895.”

"This statement by NOAA was still available on their website when checked by The Daily Caller News Foundation. But when meteorologist and climate blogger Anthony Watts went to check the NOAA data on Sunday he found that the science agency had quietly reinstated July 1936 as the hottest month on record in the U.S."

So here is one instance that data was "mis-managed". One has to wonder what other date was "mis-manged".

Well woody. If you can positively "disprove" that climate change is real and man-caused, you could win ten grand.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/06/2 ... ate-change

woodchip wrote:"This statement by NOAA was still available on their website when checked by The Daily Caller News Foundation. But when meteorologist and climate blogger Anthony Watts went to check the NOAA data on Sunday he found that the science agency had quietly reinstated July 1936 as the hottest month on record in the U.S."

So here is one instance that data was "mis-managed". One has to wonder what other date was "mis-manged".

Where has the site "quietly reinstated" anything? The website clearly says that July 2012 was hotter than July 1936:

NOAA wrote:The average temperature for the contiguous U.S. during July was 77.6°F, 3.3°F above the 20th century average, marking the warmest July and all-time warmest month on record for the nation in a period of record that dates back to 1895. The previous warmest July for the nation was July 1936, when the average U.S. temperature was 77.4°F.

Did I miss something?

haha

woody don't bother with 'em. They don't know a thing about science, they just listen to whatever they're told.

Jeff250 wrote:

Did I miss something?

Yes, you did not look at the revised July 1936 temp which is now 76.8 deg

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-serie ... ilter=true

woodchip wrote:

Jeff250 wrote:

Did I miss something?

Yes, you did not look at the revised July 1936 temp which is now 76.8 deg

which is a full DEGREE cooler than the 2012 number. What am I missing? Funny, this whole climate thing has been revived by some blogger who was apparently a former NOAA or NASA employee. Likely a disgruntled one, it seems. The only sources seem to be the likes of Brietbart(whose track record of publishing stuff they know to be fiction or falsehood is legendary). NOT ONE legitimate news outlet(even the many from the right) has backed up this recent stuff. Not one.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:

Jeff250 wrote:

Did I miss something?

Yes, you did not look at the revised July 1936 temp which is now 76.8 deg

which is a full DEGREE cooler than the 2012 number. What am I missing? Funny, this whole climate thing has been revived by some blogger who was apparently a former NOAA or NASA employee. Likely a disgruntled one, it seems. The only sources seem to be the likes of Brietbart(whose track record of publishing stuff they know to be fiction or falsehood is legendary). NOT ONE legitimate news outlet(even the many from the right) has backed up this recent stuff. Not one.

Tell me something slick, are you deliberately being stupid or are you devoid of the simplest of skills like clicking on the link? Try it and scroll down to the list of July temps for the last 100 years. when you do, report back here what the temp for July 1936 is and it's ranking, and then tell us what the temp for July 2012 is and it's ranking. Stop being a mouth piece for the warmers for a minute and look at the data. Perhaps your "legitimate" news sources have stopped being legitimate years ago. So much for your "Not One" comment.

I’m getting….

July 1936 = 76.80 Rank 118

July 2012 = 76.77 Rank 117

.

Tell me something slick, are you deliberately being stupid or are you devoid of the simplest of skills like clicking on the link? Try it and scroll down to the list of July temps for the last 100 years. when you do, report back here what the temp for July 1936 is and it's ranking, and then tell us what the temp for July 2012 is and it's ranking. Stop being a mouth piece for the warmers for a minute and look at the data. Perhaps your "legitimate" news sources have stopped being legitimate years ago. So much for your "Not One" comment.

not being a 'mouthpiece' for anyone, but simply going on the numbers posted in this thread.Seriously, this 'debate' has come up in the past two weeks amongst the loony right, so I've sort of seen the 'data', and looked at the actual facts involved. I just got back from a week at the shore, so I'm merely catching up with the thread and used the numbers you all quoted. So what, if more modern technologies allow for re-evaluation of older data? You make it out to be like (once again) we aren't, globally(weather isn't isolated to smaller places, it's all one unit)warming at an increasing rate. By doing so, you look like a moron, so driven by ideology as to feel comfortable screwing over your grandkids and later by doing nothing to address the situation now. Thanks a bunch

callmeslick wrote:.

not being a 'mouthpiece' for anyone, but simply going on the numbers posted in this thread.Seriously, this 'debate' has come up in the past two weeks amongst the loony right, so I've sort of seen the 'data', and looked at the actual facts involved. I just got back from a week at the shore, so I'm merely catching up with the thread and used the numbers you all quoted.

You didn't even quote the right numbers. Blindly following others is evidence of a weak mind.

callmeslick wrote:.So what, if more modern technologies allow for re-evaluation of older data? You make it out to be like (once again) we aren't, globally(weather isn't isolated to smaller places, it's all one unit)warming at an increasing rate.

Data is data and has nothing to do with "re-evaluation". Warming may be occurring but is not man driven to the point we have to change our total economic game plan.

callmeslick wrote:.By doing so, you look like a moron, so driven by ideology as to feel comfortable screwing over your grandkids and later by doing nothing to address the situation now. Thanks a bunch

The only one driven by ideology appears to be you. Manipulating data to promote a false premise will screw over the grand kiddies a whole lot worse by trying to change a naturally occurring warming trend.

woodchip wrote:http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-serie ... ilter=true

So at the top of this page, it says "NCDC transitioned to the nClimDiv dataset on Thursday, March 13, 2014." Is there any reason to believe that that isn't true?

Jeff250 wrote:

woodchip wrote:http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-serie ... ilter=true

So at the top of this page, it says "NCDC transitioned to the nClimDiv dataset on Thursday, March 13, 2014." Is there any reason to believe that that isn't true?

Sorry, I couldn't say one way or the other. What relevancy do you think it might mean?

Your claim is that climate data was mismanaged and that data was quietly changed, whereas it appears that this other page just uses a different dataset (for instance, in this dataset both July 1936 and July 2012 are cooler than they were in the other dataset) and there doesn't seem to be anything quiet about this switch of datasets.

I don't know the details of this particular piece of disputed data but just because they claim to have transitioned to a 'new data set' doesn't mean the new set is more accurate. Since there have been incidents where the UN had altered their records to remove data that contradicts the hyperbolic claims they chose to publish it is no wonder there is skepticism regarding this change.

woodchip wrote:For you doubters that climate data is being manipulated:

"July 2012 became the hottest month on record in the U.S. during a summer that was declared “too hot to handle” by NASA scientists. That summer more than half the country was experiencing drought and wildfires had scorched more than 1.3 million acres of land, according to NASA."

According to NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in 2012, the “average temperature for the contiguous U.S. during July was 77.6°F, 3.3°F above the 20th century average, marking the warmest July and all-time warmest month on record for the nation in a period of record that dates back to 1895.”

"This statement by NOAA was still available on their website when checked by The Daily Caller News Foundation. But when meteorologist and climate blogger Anthony Watts went to check the NOAA data on Sunday he found that the science agency had quietly reinstated July 1936 as the hottest month on record in the U.S."

So here is one instance that data was "mis-managed". One has to wonder what other date was "mis-manged".

And then what? Disappear under the water more a few islands? Or change the coastline of continents? People will migrate within the continents, that's all. Along with the increasing number of people on the planet will increase industry and the impact of human activity on the ecosystem. You raised the issue again, which we all know so long ago. But you still have not offered any solutions to this problem.

Like sigma indicated, all you deniers are forgetting there's another indication of climate warming. Ocean levels are rising. They weren't in the 1930's even though it was slightly warmer then. All that extra seawater is coming from somewhere, namely melting arctic ice and glaciers and it's already becoming a problem in many coastal cities and islands.

http://qz.com/228284/the-ocean-is-swall ... te-change/

Jeff250 wrote:Your claim is that climate data was mismanaged and that data was quietly changed, whereas it appears that this other page just uses a different dataset (for instance, in this dataset both July 1936 and July 2012 are cooler than they were in the other dataset) and there doesn't seem to be anything quiet about this switch of datasets.

The problem Jeff, is that people use the mismanaged data as proof that July of 2012 was the hottest on record, not understanding that 80 years ago there was a July even warmer. Just do a search for July 2012 hottest and you will see what I mean:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 115055.htm

The problem I have is the manipulation of fact and science as evidenced by this and such things as the East Anglia emails, that makes one wonder what else is being manipulated. How many other datasets are being ignored in favor of ones more friendly to the warming religion?

tunnelcat wrote:Like sigma indicated, all you deniers are forgetting there's another indication of climate warming. Ocean levels are rising. They weren't in the 1930's even though it was slightly warmer then. All that extra seawater is coming from somewhere, namely melting arctic ice and glaciers and it's already becoming a problem in many coastal cities and islands.

http://qz.com/228284/the-ocean-is-swall ... te-change/

What would you like to do about the geothermal activity beneath the western antarctic ice sheets and glaciers that is already been shown to be contributing to the regions ice melt?

sigma wrote: You raised the issue again, which we all know so long ago. But you still have not offered any solutions to this problem.

How do you stop a tornado or a hurricane? A earthquake?

For those of us who hate the cold and have property a few rows back and a bit higher than the beach the warming and rising sea levels could be a blessing

Adapt and overcome. Or in my case, adapt, overcome and my children cash in!

woodchip wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:Like sigma indicated, all you deniers are forgetting there's another indication of climate warming. Ocean levels are rising. They weren't in the 1930's even though it was slightly warmer then. All that extra seawater is coming from somewhere, namely melting arctic ice and glaciers and it's already becoming a problem in many coastal cities and islands.

http://qz.com/228284/the-ocean-is-swall ... te-change/

What would you like to do about the geothermal activity beneath the western antarctic ice sheets and glaciers that is already been shown to be contributing to the regions ice melt?

The geothermal activity is not the main reason, only a contributing factor, which should alarm us even more since we now have a double whammy contributing to ocean level rise. Plus many ice sheets in the Antarctic are melting that are already floating in the ocean, so the ocean must also be getting warmer. As for glaciers melting, although there are geothermal components for many glaciers in Greenland and the Antarctic, most of them elsewhere are melting just because it's getting warmer in the atmosphere.

http://www.decodedscience.com/antarctic ... ming/46565

Will Robinson wrote:For those of us who hate the cold and have property a few rows back and a bit higher than the beach the warming and rising sea levels could be a blessing

Adapt and overcome. Or in my case, adapt, overcome and my children cash in!

Tell that to every New Yorker on Long Island and Manhattan, especially every time a hurricane washes away those homes people won't quit rebuilding on the sea shore or floods out all that infrastructure running New York. And since I'm sure you're an insurance holder, you get to pay for it in the form of higher premiums.

tunnelcat wrote:

The geothermal activity is not the main reason, only a contributing factor,

How do you know that the geothermal activity is not a major factor as the discovery is quite new?
"According to his findings, the minimum average geothermal heat flow beneath Thwaites Glacier is about 100 milliwatts per square meter, with hotspots over 200 milliwatts per square meter. For comparison, the average heat flow of the Earth’s continents is less than 65 milliwatts per square meter."

Also the are where this is occurring can cause the oceans to rise 3-6 feet. Not insignificant by any means.

tunnelcat wrote: Tell that to every New Yorker on Long Island and Manhattan, especially every time a hurricane washes away those homes people won't quit rebuilding on the sea shore or floods out all that infrastructure running New York. And since I'm sure you're an insurance holder, you get to pay for it in the form of higher premiums.

When the insurance co. stop insuring coastal buildings,people will stop building there. Still, since Katrina, hurricanes have been at their quietest.

tunnelcat wrote:...

Will Robinson wrote:For those of us who hate the cold and have property a few rows back and a bit higher than the beach the warming and rising sea levels could be a blessing

Adapt and overcome. Or in my case, adapt, overcome and my children cash in!

Tell that to every New Yorker on Long Island and Manhattan, especially every time a hurricane washes away those homes people won't quit rebuilding on the sea shore or floods out all that infrastructure running New York. And since I'm sure you're an insurance holder, you get to pay for it in the form of higher premiums.

I have been paying and so it gives me much joy to know my grandchildren will be inheriting ocean front property AND their insurance will be in part funded by others as I was one of those others for so long.

woodchip wrote:The problem Jeff, is that people use the mismanaged data as proof that July of 2012 was the hottest on record, not understanding that 80 years ago there was a July even warmer. Just do a search for July 2012 hottest and you will see what I mean:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 115055.htm

Where do you get "mismanaged data" from? I don't know the pros and cons of either dataset, but to say that one of them is mismanaged is an allegation that requires evidence.

woodchip wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:

The geothermal activity is not the main reason, only a contributing factor,

How do you know that the geothermal activity is not a major factor as the discovery is quite new?
"According to his findings, the minimum average geothermal heat flow beneath Thwaites Glacier is about 100 milliwatts per square meter, with hotspots over 200 milliwatts per square meter. For comparison, the average heat flow of the Earth’s continents is less than 65 milliwatts per square meter."

Also the are where this is occurring can cause the oceans to rise 3-6 feet. Not insignificant by any means.

You're grasping at straws. That geothermal activity you note has been going on for millennia. If that were a factor, we would've seen more ice melting in the past.

woodchip wrote:

tunnelcat wrote: Tell that to every New Yorker on Long Island and Manhattan, especially every time a hurricane washes away those homes people won't quit rebuilding on the sea shore or floods out all that infrastructure running New York. And since I'm sure you're an insurance holder, you get to pay for it in the form of higher premiums.

When the insurance co. stop insuring coastal buildings,people will stop building there. Still, since Katrina, hurricanes have been at their quietest.

Perhaps. But tell that to everyone who lives along any coastal area in the entire U.S., or a river for that matter. I'm sure they'd move just to make your insurance rates go down. And I'm pretty sure New Yorkers would be very hard to uproot. But hey, if the climate is changing, then all those insurance moochers will eventually be forced out in the future, problem solved. However, don't get too haughty. Where you live woody, you have to contend with destructive thunderstorms and tornadoes. Maybe we shouldn't insure anyone who lives in tornado alley because those idiots just keep rebuilding buildings in a well known hazard zone. After all, tornadoes are real, but climate change is just a liberal plot, according to you.

Will Robinson wrote:I have been paying and so it gives me much joy to know my grandchildren will be inheriting ocean front property AND their insurance will be in part funded by others as I was one of those others for so long.

Don't count on it. Their future ocean front property will probably be just as ephemeral as it is now. Plus, there will be more people fighting over it.

tunnelcat wrote:

You're grasping at straws. That geothermal activity you note has been going on for millennia. If that were a factor, we would've seen more ice melting in the past.

You should do a little more research before you make a statement like this:

"In his 1968 paper, Mercer called the West Antarctic Ice Sheet a "uniquely vulnerable and unstable body of ice." Mercer based his statement on geologic evidence that West Antarctica’s ice had changed considerably many, many millennia ago at times when the ice sheets of East Antarctica and Greenland had not"

http://www.nasa.gov/jpl/news/antarctic- ... 7M6IEBj6So

Note that the link is dated before the paper understanding of the role geo-thermal activity was written about

And if you would of read my other link
posting.php?mode=quote&f=4&p=336183
You would have remembered "Scroll down to S6 map and you will notice the west antarctic ice sheet (wais) has been disappearing since 15000 years ago."
Do try and keep up.

Jeff250 wrote:

woodchip wrote:The problem Jeff, is that people use the mismanaged data as proof that July of 2012 was the hottest on record, not understanding that 80 years ago there was a July even warmer. Just do a search for July 2012 hottest and you will see what I mean:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 115055.htm

Where do you get "mismanaged data" from? I don't know the pros and cons of either dataset, but to say that one of them is mismanaged is an allegation that requires evidence.

Using two different data sets, one that that shows July of 2012 to be the hottest and another that shows July of 1936 to be hottest tells me the data itself is being mismanaged. Don't understand how you fail to see that.

The more obvious explanation is that they come from different sources.

Except they are both presented by NOAA. Are you saying they (NOAA) have conflicting data sources ?

Jeff250 wrote:The more obvious explanation is that they come from different sources.

sorry to butt in, Jeff, but I had to highlight that word. I just had to.........

And if you google for the difference, it's the first result:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/transitio ... al-dataset

tunnelcat wrote:Like sigma indicated, all you deniers are forgetting there's another indication of climate warming. Ocean levels are rising. They weren't in the 1930's even though it was slightly warmer then. All that extra seawater is coming from somewhere, namely melting arctic ice and glaciers and it's already becoming a problem in many coastal cities and islands.

http://qz.com/228284/the-ocean-is-swall ... te-change/

Well if melting of the Antarctic ice is one of the main reasons for the rise of oceanic waters then you can take heart. Not only did the arctic ice gain but the antarctic as well:

"Antarctic sea ice has hit its second all-time record maximum this week. The new record is 2.112 million square kilometers above normal. Until the weekend just past, the previous record had been 1.840 million square kilometers above normal, a mark hit on December 20, 2007, "

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014 ... in-a-week/

And of course the reason for the record highs is global warming.

Oh and here is a second source in case you are dubious of the first:

"While the globe last month endured its warmest April in 135 years of records (tied with 2010), Antarctic sea ice reached its largest April extent on record, according to a report released Tuesday by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Antarctic sea ice last month measured 3.47 million square miles, 21.6% above the long-term average and the most in April since records began in 1979."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2 ... e/9339943/

yes, the reason is overall warming. And, further, that was explained to Mr. Goddard, but it didn't fit his ideological viewpoint so he(and you, apparently) dismissed the explanation(which, for the curious, involved rates of circulation of cold waters increasing with increased temps of southern hemisphere ocean water).

Then I guess what you are saying is we need more warming to keep the oceans from rising.

Once again, sea ice has zero impact on sea levels. Ice already floating in water cannot change the amount of water, a glass of water with an ice cube does not suddenly contain more water when the ice cube melts, nor does it contain less water if you freeze it again.

Here is a little experiment for you: Take a cup, measure out 8 ounces of water and put it in the cup, freeze it in your freezer. Now that it is frozen, how much water is in the cup?
Then set a sieve over the top of your cup, and set a 2 ounce ice cube in the sieve, let it melt into the cup. Now how much water is in the cup?
Are we starting to understand the difference between freezing or unfreezing water that is already in the ocean versus freezing or unfreezing water that is NOT already in the ocean?

Sea levels only rise when ice over land melts and the water goes into the ocean. So for as long as glaciers are retreating and ice over land is melting, sea levels will continue to rise even if the amount of sea ice ended up covering the entire ocean.

But as water warms, it expands.

woodchip wrote:But as water warms, it expands.

Did you learn that in school? Maybe you need to go back and pay attention this time.

Krom wrote:...

Here is a little experiment for you: Take a cup, measure out 8 ounces of water and put it in the cup, freeze it in your freezer. Now that it is frozen, how much water is in the cup?

None.

Krom wrote:...Then set a sieve over the top of your cup, and set a 2 ounce ice cube in the sieve, let it melt into the cup. Now how much water is in the cup?

assuming none of that new ice melted...2 ounces less any
water that froze on contact with the ice upon entering the cup.

How much new water is coming from geothermal heat vs. atmospheric changes? How has the sea level historically risen from similar heat sources?

Seems like those should be factored into the models before any experts tell us how high the seas will rise in the context of mans contribution to the warming.

Woody, when you fill the ice cube tray and put it in a freezer, are the cubes larger or smaller when they freeze? If you've never noticed, please, try this experiment at home.


Will, you simply seem unaware that ice IS water. Don't even bother with my experiment, you may hurt yourself.

callmeslick wrote:Woody, when you fill the ice cube tray and put it in a freezer, are the cubes larger or smaller when they freeze? If you've never noticed, please, try this experiment at home.


Will, you simply seem unaware that ice IS water. Don't even bother with my experiment, you may hurt yourself.

No, ice is ice...a solid. Water is liquid.

Water changes state from liquid to solid or to gas, sometimes from solid straight to gas without ever becomes liquid again and we have different names for a purpose. They are different things.

For example, Kroms point, and experiment, would be moot if not for that distinction. You jerk your knee to quickly...

Are the sea levels measured at the waters edge or at the highest point of the iceberg? Don't get hurt with that.