[OT] NASA, NOAA Analyses Reveal Record-Shattering Global Warm Temperatures in 2015

There is more evidence with a FART.

jamie

ed

one,

itution(s) that have proven to be technologically and scientifically compet ent are regarded as the opposite simply because they are taxpayer funded. This includes public universities (tax funded) that have produced all sorts of technology and medical advancements that not even you could claim are m ade-up or false.

So the universities have to produce the kinds of "impressive" results that can attract funding from private donors?

Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson in vintage form.

Actually, they are already suffering from the more frequent examples of "ex treme weather" which are obvious consequences of even the relatively limited anth ropogenic global warming that we've already generated.

The elite know that anthropogenic global warming is real - contrast Exxon-M obil's projections about long-term weather in the Arctic with their subsidi es for denialist propaganda - but they want to keep on getting paid for dig ging up fossil carbon and selling it as fuel, and figure that enough of the ignorati (which obviously includes Jim Thompson) can fooled by crappy deni alist propaganda to buy them a few more years of profitable planet-wrecking .

If you are less pig-ignorant than Jim Thompson or John Larkin, you'll work out who has the largest financial interest in funding climate change denial ... and

will tell you how much they've spent subsidising th e merchants of doubt.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

e:

: =

ded

gone,

titution(s) that have proven to be technologically and scientifically compe tent are regarded as the opposite simply because they are taxpayer funded. This includes public universities (tax funded) that have produced all sort s of technology and medical advancements that not even you could claim are made-up or false.

No wonder the institution is going down the tubes. Right-wing nitwits are c learly using their political pull to get jobs for their friends and relativ es.

.html

Those are things they can do in addition to their main task, which is to ge t stuff into orbit, and have it keep working there, but their - minimal - p olitical clout does depend on them doing their basic job right, and anybody with more sense than James Arthur would appreciate that this is obvious en ough not to need to be spelled out.

s

US technical management isn't good at listening to engineers. Apple succeed ed because Steve Jobs was an engineer and a manager, but most of US industr y is run by people who think that discounted cash-flows are all that matter s, and that the people predicting the cash flows know more about the future than the engineers who are in the business of changing it.

It's a branch of government. They are under an obligation to explain what t hey do to the tax-payers and voters - that's what representative democracy is all about (though the founding tax-evaders were a bit weak on the necess ity to inform the bulk of the population about where their taxes were going , since the Federalist Papers were written at a time when newspapers were a n expensive luxury circulated to the well-off, rather than a mass-market pr oduct aimed at everybody).

But James Arthur's idea of checking seems to be to go to the nearest denial ist web-site and find some barely plausible excuse for a counter-argument.

What we have here is a contemptible conspiracy theory justification for dis carding NASA's report that anthropogenic global warming is real and happeni ng now.

Every other national meteorology organisation of any substance has been tel ling the same story for years now, but James Arthur doesn't want to take an y of them seriously, for profoundly asinine political and ideological reaso ns

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Climatecentral is another of those all-doom-all-the-time sites. Great place for neurotic depressives to get their fix.

Have you noticed that most newspaper articles are all about death, crime, terrorism, and global warming lately?

--

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 
picosecond timing   precision measurement  

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com 
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

It's even more insane to imagine that we need them to show that anthropogenic global warming is real and happening now.

But since John Larkin only posts links to denialist propaganda, his sanity isn't really involved - he's clearly much to gullible to be taken seriously.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

do.

g

The leprechaun isn't scientific - and it's not mentioned in the link. What is mentioned is the Argo buoy data which has started telling us what's goin g on in the depths of the oceans.

We've known that more and less heat ends up in the depths of the oceans sin ce we started to appreciate the existence of the Multidecadal Atlantic Osci llation - part of the heat that moves from the equator to the poles is carr ied by ocean currents, and these seem to wander about over periods of decad es.

This isn't any kind of leprechaun, but James Arthur isn't shy about insulti ng his reader's intelligence with moronic rhetorical tricks.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

The link was on NASA's(*) website! Very sciencey.

(*) Nice and artsy--+1C = FIRE!

The world does seem a bit on the brink these days, after all of Barack's magic. I blame GWB. But this guy's always good for a pick-me-up:

"Mr White said Europe's creditors are likely to face some of the biggest haircuts. European banks have already admitted to $1 trillion of non- performing loans: ... The European banking system may have to be recapitalized on a scale yet unimagined, and new "bail-in" rules mean that any deposit holder above the guarantee of EURO 100,000 will have to help pay for it."

Cheers, James Arthur

So? RTDs haven't caused any changes in average reported temperatures. The 'latex' only describes the paint base, not the pigment. The color and IR emissivity depend on the pigment. The white-painted wood in contact with airflow does NOT seem likely to have a big effect on a thermometer, also in the same airflow. Do you have any numbers? Do you expect a change? In average temperature, or only phase-shifts in diurnal timing?

They don't have any numbers, and no procedure for generating them. No useful information at all, in fact. Criticism, done well, is constructive: it informs an improvement.

Don't ever believe that. It's hard to get consistent liquid-helium temperature measurements, and it can be done anyhow. Ambient air is lots easier, because the air has higher heat capacity. Certainly you know lots of electronic apparatus is cooled with airflow? And, radiation doesn't transfer heat nearly fast enough to take the place of airflow?

If and as you know how the past measurements are 'different', there's no adjusted records at all. The adjustment is in the MODEL. What you call 'tuning' or 'fudging' or 'adjusting' are all calibrations and testable interpolations. If you can do it BETTER, publish. The models will improve...

Don't forget Donald Trump. ;-)

That's the standard argument: the old climate models were all wrong, but the models are better now. I expect the same concept will be popular 20 years from now.

--

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 

lunatic fringe electronics

Oh, we'll have another big economic crash; those are semi-periodic. I wouldn't mind one at all. I did great on the last one.

But on a more personal level, I see some fraction of the population, maybe 1/3, who are scaired, depressed, timid, gluten-free neurotics. There's money to be made from them.

--

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 

lunatic fringe electronics

ive: it informs

erature

cause

c apparatus

st enough

all

ve...

In fact that's lunatic misapprehension of what climate models are about, di m enough to have been copied from Joey Hey - which is to say that Joey Hey and John Larkin both get their deluded ideas from denialist propaganda, whi ch they are too pig-ignorant to recognise as such.

John Larkin's ideas about the inadequacies of Stevenson boxes all derive fr om Anthony Watts half-witted obsession with the subject. The denialist prop aganda machine encourages and supports Watts' obsession, but in practice hi storical measurements do support the reality of global warming.

Climate models have been telling much the same story about the effects of e xtra CO2 in the atmosphere since there has been infrared-absorbtion data go od enough to demonstrate the greenhouse effect, and computers big enough to run models with useful numbers of elements to simulate a real atmosphere.

We've still got a long way to go - at the moment the elements can be severa l hundred kilometres long and wide - but we'll do better. This won't mean t hat the results will be dramatically more precise, but there will be fewer "statistical averages and parameterizations" which would make John Larkin h appier, if he knew enough the subject to know what it meant.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Er... unless you mean Farmers' Almanac, I've not heard of any 'all wrong' climate models. Specify.

We've improved modeling of many complex systems over the years, but early models are sometimes quite adequate. Reaction calculations for the first A-bombs took months (the 'computers' were enlistees). But, the very first one built, went 'pop' on schedule and at the predicted magnitude. Ditto the second, and the third.

I don't know what 'standard argument' means, but I like to make valid ones.

eded because Steve Jobs was an engineer and a manager, but most of US indus try is run by people who think that discounted cash-flows are all that matt ers, and that the people predicting the cash flows know more about the futu re than the engineers who are in the business of changing it.

Small correction: Jobs was no engineer. That was Wozniak, who was no manag er.

}snip{

You must be joking...

There is no representative democracy where 99% of the population is

*not* being represented.

}snip{

joe

Just one example of thousands:

"Beginning in a decade or two, scientists expect the warming of the atmosphere to melt the polar icecaps, raising the level of the seas, flooding coastal areas, eroding the shores and sending salt water far into fresh-water estuaries. Storm patterns will change, drying out some areas, swamping others and generally throwing agriculture into turmoil. Federal climate experts have suggested that within a century the greenhouse effect could turn New York City into something with the climate of Daytona Beach, Fla."

So, how is the new alarmism any better than the old alarmism?

Climate is a wildly chaotic system with unknown causalities, unknown forcings, suspect measurements, and an un-knowable initial state.

Not very promising for modeling. Given good time-series data, regression analysis can spot periodicities without having to understand anything. Looks like we may be in for another mini ice age.

But there's hope!

The claim that models are better now, and run better on more powerful computers, is usual in the climate modeling business. Has been for decades.

--

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 

lunatic fringe electronics

"As seen on TV..."

Then it helps to start with accurate facts.

1. Climate is a great deal more complicated than a mere weapon, as evidenced, if nothing else, by the disparity in compute-power needed to estimate it. For one, a room of manually-operated adding machines, the other, the fastest supercomputers of the world still inadequate.

1. As Wiki tells it, the Trinity test's advance yield estimates varied from 'fizzle' to 'ignite the atmosphere.' Teller predicted 45kT, Oppenheimer 300T.

2. Climate has a much larger set of uncertainties and unknowns than the weapon, especially when many of the effects allegedly hinge on human behavior (e.g transportation, land-use, energy use, and pollution). Accordingly, climate models are not accurate models of known physical processes, but rules-of-thumb, adjustment factors, and the crudest approximations and presumptions.

1. Climate outcomes presume to depend on not the entire energy budget, but a small differential, integrated over centuries. Thus the climate solution is both far more complicated, and exquisitely more sensitive to inaccuracies.

2. You're defending models and modeling in general, but those haven't been impugned. Climate models have.

The last two years were supposedly the warmest ever. In the first, California had a drought blamed on AGW; in the second, warmer year, it rained.

Cheers, James Arthur

ceeded because Steve Jobs was an engineer and a manager, but most of US ind ustry is run by people who think that discounted cash-flows are all that ma tters, and that the people predicting the cash flows know more about the fu ture than the engineers who are in the business of changing it.

ager.

That's no small correction. That turns Bill's theory upside-down.

Cheers, James Arthur