login info join!
Forums > Off-Topic Discussion > 2012 warmest year ever in US lower 48 Search   Reply
first12
Photographer
Vivus Hussein Denuo
Posts: 63,920
New York, New York, US


Instinct Images wrote:

I don't know if that's the goal of NOAA scientists but then I doubt a scientist writes the press release. I do know that the impact of the press release is misleading people into believing it was hotter (inferring higher temperatures not high average temperatures) in 2012 than in 1936.

Are you aware of the adjustments made to the data and how it effects which year is "hottest" and also the trend?

If not you might want to check out this blog post. The data is public so you can verify the claims made for yourself.

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012 … peratures/

Your source blog lists previous articles on "Internment Camps" and Obama becoming a deity.  Such is your source.

I think I'll go with the NOAA conclusions, as you have in the past when they've supported your views.

Jan 11 13 12:56 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Instinct Images
Posts: 22,470
San Diego, California, US


Tropic Light wrote:
On December 22-23, 1990, San Jose recorded a low of 19 degrees, and that wasn't the lowest ever.  Your problems with factual data might be the result of the sources of information that you rely upon.

The record low temperature for San Jose was set on Jan 6th 1884 at 18 degrees. On Dec 22 & 23 1990 it got down to 19 degrees. I was up in the Bay Area then and it was COLD. Home Depot was selling copper pipe by the foot because so many people had burst pipes they were running out of it. We went into the city (meaning San Francisco) for on the 23rd and it was COLD. Felt like I was in Chicago on a cold winter day.

Jan 11 13 12:57 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Instinct Images
Posts: 22,470
San Diego, California, US


Vivus Hussein Denuo wrote:
Your source blog lists previous articles on "Internment Camps" and Obama becoming a deity.  Such is your source.

I think I'll go with the NOAA conclusions, as you have in the past when they've supported your views.

As I said, the data is publicly available so you COULD look for yourself. NOAA reports on the adjusted data. It's very convenient that the past gets cooler with each adjustment.

As for the blog post about Obama becoming a deity he's making fun of this headline from the National Journal

Guns, Debt, and Climate Change Give Obama Shot at Immortality

He used the word deity since the headline says Obama has a shot at immortality and we all know that only gods are immortal.

Jan 11 13 01:06 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
surinity
Posts: 1,481
Pattaya, Central, Thailand


Instinct Images wrote:
Are you aware of the adjustments made to the data and how it effects which year is "hottest" and also the trend?

If not you might want to check out this blog post. The data is public so you can verify the claims made for yourself.

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012 … peratures/

shame the article makes no attempt to examine why the adjustments were made, but it seems the commentators on the blog are already fully aware that its a vast conspiracy so why complicate the issue

Jan 11 13 01:25 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Instinct Images
Posts: 22,470
San Diego, California, US


Now I realize this might be tricky for some but see if you can possibly figure out when we had more high temperatures - in the 1930s or in 2012:

http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/screenhunter_320-dec-01-11-30.jpg
Jan 11 13 01:26 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Tropic Light
Posts: 7,207
Kailua, Hawaii, US


Instinct Images wrote:
Now I realize this might be tricky for some but see if you can possibly figure out when we had more high temperatures - in the 1930s or in 2012:

http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/screenhunter_320-dec-01-11-30.jpg

The number of GHCN stations that have been active since 1900 is quite small, and is mainly weighted between the US and Australia.  It looks at a very minute portion of global climate data.

Jan 11 13 02:06 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Instinct Images
Posts: 22,470
San Diego, California, US


Tropic Light wrote:

The number of GHCN stations that have been active since 1900 is quite small, and is mainly weighted between the US and Australia.  It looks at a very minute portion of global climate data.

Yes but that chart is showing the GHCN stations for the United States that have been active since 1900 so a valid comparison can be done between 1936 and 2012 in the United States.

It doesn't say anything about global temperatures this past year which weren't remarkable.

Jan 11 13 02:12 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Vivus Hussein Denuo
Posts: 63,920
New York, New York, US


Instinct Images wrote:

As I said, the data is publicly available so you COULD look for yourself. NOAA reports on the adjusted data. It's very convenient that the past gets cooler with each adjustment.

As for the blog post about Obama becoming a deity he's making fun of this headline from the National Journal

Guns, Debt, and Climate Change Give Obama Shot at Immortality

He used the word deity since the headline says Obama has a shot at immortality and we all know that only gods are immortal.

You didn't mention the "Internment Camps" article.  There's also one entitled "The Rationale for Murdering 50 Million Babies."  Instinct, that is not a respectable source for scientific information.  I'm still going with NOAA.

Jan 11 13 03:07 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Instinct Images
Posts: 22,470
San Diego, California, US


Vivus Hussein Denuo wrote:

You didn't mention the "Internment Camps" article.  There's also one entitled "The Rationale for Murdering 50 Million Babies."  Instinct, that is not a respectable source for scientific information.  I'm still going with NOAA.

As I've said twice now the data is publicly available. If you doubt his claims it's easy enough to verify. But nice ad hom attack Vivus.

Jan 11 13 10:57 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Instinct Images
Posts: 22,470
San Diego, California, US


Here's the source of the data. If you're actually interested you could compare the raw data to the adjusted data and see how it impacts the trend and record years.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ushcn_v2_monthly/
Jan 11 13 11:37 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Vivus Hussein Denuo
Posts: 63,920
New York, New York, US


Instinct Images wrote:
Here's the source of the data. If you're actually interested you could compare the raw data to the adjusted data and see how it impacts the trend and record years.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ushcn_v2_monthly/

I'm not a climatologist, nor a chemist, an astronomer, a surveyor, an oceanographer, nor many other kinds of specialist.  Hence, I rely on the true experts.  In disputes, such as in climatology, I try to evaluate both sides, but when one side relies on a blog that also espouses ridiculous notions, I have to give it short shrift.  Maybe NOAA is wrong and the blog guy is right.  But to me that's an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof.  To me, the extraordinary proof is lacking.

I'm sticking with NOAA.

Jan 11 13 03:43 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Instinct Images
Posts: 22,470
San Diego, California, US


Vivus Hussein Denuo wrote:
I'm not a climatologist, nor a chemist, an astronomer, a surveyor, an oceanographer, nor many other kinds of specialist.  Hence, I rely on the true experts.  In disputes, such as in climatology, I try to evaluate both sides, but when one side relies on a blog that also espouses ridiculous notions, I have to give it short shrift.  Maybe NOAA is wrong and the blog guy is right.  But to me that's an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof.  To me, the extraordinary proof is lacking.

I'm sticking with NOAA.

If NOAA is going change historical data don't you think they should be required to explain the adjustments and justify them? I do!

It's not a question of who is right. The blogger simply pointed out what NOAA has done to the data. He shows how it impacts historical records as well as trends. Anyone can duplicate his work to ensure that he claims is valid. The only question is whether or not there is a valid reason for those adjustments and if they truly result in a more accurate representation of historical fact.

Vivus did you know that NOAA has adjusted past temperatures downward?

Jan 11 13 08:29 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Instinct Images
Posts: 22,470
San Diego, California, US


Was the severe drought this past year due to climate change? Apparently the US precipitation has been increasing at a similar rate as it is warming. Interesting.

http://img844.imageshack.us/img844/6015/capturenaf.jpg

Source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-preci … =110&div=0
Jan 11 13 11:01 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Vivus Hussein Denuo
Posts: 63,920
New York, New York, US


Instinct Images wrote:

If NOAA is going change historical data don't you think they should be required to explain the adjustments and justify them? I do!

It's not a question of who is right. The blogger simply pointed out what NOAA has done to the data. He shows how it impacts historical records as well as trends. Anyone can duplicate his work to ensure that he claims is valid. The only question is whether or not there is a valid reason for those adjustments and if they truly result in a more accurate representation of historical fact.

Vivus did you know that NOAA has adjusted past temperatures downward?

I tried clicking on the top link, but instead of the file opening, I got an invitation to buy WinZip, only $29.95.  If  it's going to cost me money to review evidence, forget it.  We're not doing actual research here.  We're members of a modeling site!

Not that it matters.  I lack the expertise to evaluate the files anyway, nor their provenance.  I think I'd rather discuss whether the administration is planning to build internment camps...one of the other  issues your site is interested in.  At least I wouldn't have to be a climatologist to discuss that.

Jan 11 13 11:05 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Instinct Images
Posts: 22,470
San Diego, California, US


Vivus Hussein Denuo wrote:
I tried clicking on the top link, but instead of the file opening, I got an invitation to buy WinZip, only $29.95.  If  it's going to cost me money to review evidence, forget it.  We're not doing actual research here.  We're members of a modeling site!

Not that it matters.  I lack the expertise to evaluate the files anyway, nor their provenance.  I think I'd rather discuss whether the administration is planning to build internment camps...one of the other  issues your site is interested in.  At least I wouldn't have to be a climatologist to discuss that.

You don't own a program for opening zip files? There are some free ones you can download but that sounds like too much work for you.

This should do the trick since the files are zipped with .gz compression and it's free:

http://download.cnet.com/7-Zip/3000-225 … ag=mncol;4

Jan 11 13 11:10 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Vivus Hussein Denuo
Posts: 63,920
New York, New York, US


Instinct Images wrote:

You don't own a program for opening zip files? There are some free ones you can download but that sounds like too much work for you.

This should do the trick since the files are zipped with .gz compression and it's free:

http://download.cnet.com/7-Zip/3000-225 … ag=mncol;4

I'm on my laptop b/c my desktop ate something it shouldn't have, and died.  So, I'm not downloading any software, thank you.  If you want to evince some zipped evidence, unzip it and post it in the clear.

But note that I explained that it won't matter, and why.

Jan 11 13 11:26 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Instinct Images
Posts: 22,470
San Diego, California, US


If you can't be bothered to install a program to unzip a file I highly doubt you'll want to go to the effort of looking at the data considering the work that has to be done to understand it. Here's the readme that explains it:

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ushcn_v2_monthly/readme.txt

You might want to use the web interface instead. Only problem is that you can only plot the data for a single station. At least it allows you to plot the raw, TOBS adjusted, or full adjusted data.

Here's an example picked at random from the midwest:

RAW TMAX:

http://img585.imageshack.us/img585/7075/captureioi.jpg

Fully adjusted TMAX:

http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/3980/captureye.jpg

As you can see after "adjustments" the decade after 2000 is about as warm as the 1930's where with the raw data it is significantly cooler. It looks like the temperature difference between 1930 and 1999 was 5 degrees using the raw data but only 2 degrees using the adjusted data. Maybe all the thermometers ran a few degrees too hot back in the 1930's so that's why they needed to drop those temperatures. Sure.

This site was picked at random other than intentionally chosing a site I figured was small meaning not a big city.

Here's when I created the plots:
cdiac.ornl.gov
Jan 12 13 12:41 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Instinct Images
Posts: 22,470
San Diego, California, US


Here's the two charts above in a handy animated GIF for comparison. Note that the axis values change. I added the line for reference.

http://img688.imageshack.us/img688/34/iaraw2.gif
Jan 12 13 01:27 am  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
Robb Mann
Posts: 10,019
Baltimore, Maryland, US


Flowers are blooming in central park that shouldnt be out for a few months.

In DC, we were 5 degrees above normal for the month. Five degrees. To Climatologists a change in monthly average of 0.5 to 1 degree is significant, so Five degrees is massive and unprecedented.

We are so Fucked.

Only Lord Gore can save us now.
Jan 12 13 06:39 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
surinity
Posts: 1,481
Pattaya, Central, Thailand


Instinct Images wrote:
Vivus did you know that NOAA has adjusted past temperatures downward?

did you know they have adjusted past temperatures upwards as well?

Jan 12 13 07:11 am  Link  Quote 
first12   Search   Reply



main | browse | casting/travel | forums | shout box | help | advertising | contests | share | join the mayhem

more modelmayhem on: | | | edu

©2006-2014 ModelMayhem.com. All Rights Reserved.
MODEL MAYHEM is a registered trademark.
Toggle Worksafe Mode: Off | On
Terms | Privacy | Careers