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

By which he presumably means that the peak temperature hasn't got higher th an it did at the peak of the 1998 El Nino. Pity about that kind of cherry-p icking. The current El Nino seems to be at least as intense as the 1998 (wh ich was unusually strong) so he's going to lose that line very soon.

hundreds

matter

ingle

' temperature,

John Larkin is both ignorant and confused. Since he doesn't know what he is talking about - and prefers the nice simple (if misleading) messages he ge ts from denialist propaganda, it's unfair to accuse him of creating any ext ra confusion by retailing nonsense designed from the start to confuse the g ullible ignorant.

RTD thermometers don't measure temperature, they measure resistance. Mercury thermometers don't measure temperature, they measure distance.

Temperature is a thermodynamic concept whose value has to be inferred from indirect measurements. Probably the most fundamental approach is to look at molecular distribution functions. The relative proportion of a molecular p opulation occupying a higher energy quantum states versus the proportion oc cupying a lower energy state defines the temperature of that population - u nless someone is exercising a scheme to produce a population inversion.

Idiot. Commonplace might be as low as 5%.

Dan

Sorry. I left out a word. I mean't "atmospheric temperature", not just temperature. The idea behind using RF emissions from oxygen is that most of the oxygen emissions come from the lower levels of the atmosphere, not from the ground or from higher levels of the atmosphere, where there's less oxygen. It also works through clouds. The problem with such satellite based temperature data is that the raw data is problematic. This is the standard disclaimer for such data: The global-average data displayed on these pages have only limited quality control, can undergo unannounced changes, and so should only be used as a general guide. Official, quality-controlled global lower-tropospheric temperatures, using more extensive processing procedures (and different satellite instruments) are updated every month and are available from the Global Hydrology Resource Center. So, the accuracy of this data is depenedent on post processing the data which MIGHT be rather selective, convoluted, creative, and politically inspired.

Low atmospheric temp is a good proxy of surface temp. It's actually a more useful number; I live in the air and don't sleep on the ground much. More importantly, the satellite data is not site dependant and is much more likely to be longterm meaningful than scattered surface measurements which are subject to local effects.

NASA used to claim that satelite data was the best way to measure global temp. Now that the satellite data is reporting things they don't like, NASA is discounting it.

Warmingists and NASA are now trashing the accuracy of satellite (and, I guess, balloon) data because they don't like what they see.

The establishment depends on warming being real, and will twist facts and data as hard as they can. It's sad that "scientists" are behaving like lawyers, professional paid liars.

How can 99% of the population not be represented if they elect their representatives? 1% of the population may have most of the wealth, but in the US we still give an equal vote to each eligible voter.

Oh, the naivete! A satellite in equatorial orbit does not see polar surfaces, and anything off-equator is viewed through, not just a few miles of atmosphere in straight-down path, but hundreds of miles of atmosphere. It's not only site dependent, it's orbit path and (orbit phase) time dependent.

'Local effects' means a whole class of data beyond what a satellite can measure. It doesn't mean noise or confusion.

And that is why so many satellites have polar orbits.

Dan Worked at the Chiniak tracking station.

On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 16:46:40 -0800 (PST), " snipped-for-privacy@krl.org" Gave us:

Only an idiot would go to the trouble of saying "commonplace might be a low as 5%". The interesting question isn't what it might be, but what it is.

I wasn't able to get Google to tell me that, so I'm not in the least surprised that Dan couldn't.

In the US you do allow the wealthy to buy a lot of election-influencing pro paganda on TV. Congress keeps on trying to limit this, and the Supreme Cour t keeps on finding that the US constitution was written around the idea tha t the people who owned the country would keep on running the country, behin d a thin veneer of democracy.

Influence does not mean people did not select their representative or that they are not represented. It just means their opinions were shaped. All of our opinions are shaped always.

I won't argue there is no thin veneer of democracy in the US, but it does allow for influence on government without resorting to anarchy and revolution.

There are lots of satellites up there so satellite data is a composite, jus t like surface data. The satellite orbits are more regular than the distrib ution of ground stations, but they do decay, and that has to be corrected f or.

Spencer and Christy did drag their feet over the satellite orbital decay co rrections, which they finally made in 1998.

There are inconsistencies between different satellite data sets, which do n eed to be reconciled. Claiming that noticing this amounts to discarding dat a you don't like is the kind of nonsense people like John Larkin pick up fr om denialist propaganda and don't know enough to recognise as lies.

The scientific community has always been preoccupied with achieving consili ence between a wide variety of independent data sources. It isn't always ea sy, and the denialist propaganda machine does try and present the process o f achieving consistency as fudging the data - which is a fairly obvious lie , but one that ignorant dim-sits will fall for.

Just ask the professional paid liars that constitute the denialist propagan da machine what's going on, and they'll tell you the story that they are pa id to peddle.

John Larkin never seems to quote any other source. It's sad that he's ignor ant and gullible, and libels the scientific community because he can't reco gnise when he is being lied to.

Larkin is good at a profession that can be performed entirely within a small box with very little uncertainty other than the difficulties he has in doing math. He then sneers at anyone working in a field less understood as if that makes it pseudo-science. When we are myopic, it allows us to do good work at the end of our nose, but makes it very hard to see the rest of the world.

Those two things are not mutually exclusive. Even chaotic systems can have a strange attractor that creates repeated behavior... until it changes.

The one common aspect of chaotic systems is that they can have huge responses to small perturbations. That is a major concern with many aspects of AGW. We don't know where the tipping points are.

propaganda on TV. Congress keeps on trying to limit this, and the Supreme Court keeps on finding that the US constitution was written around the idea that the people who owned the country would keep on running the country, b ehind a thin veneer of democracy.

The problem with the US - spelled out in detail in the book "The Spirit Lev el"

is that the people with money can buy a lot of influence, and they use it e nergetically to make sure that they get even more of the money available. S ince Reagan came to power in 1981, the rest of the population has been gett ing poorer rather than richer.

There was a time that the rich in the US had more sense and allowed the poo r to earn progressively more, enough to buy steadily improving education, h ealth and housing, but that process now seems to have stopped.

Other advanced industrial countries do have the same problem - to some exte nt - in that the rich do seem to be getting richer, relative to the less ri ch, but nowhere near as much, and their poor do still seem to be getting ri cher.

The actual level of income inequality in the US is very high, and it correl ates with a variety of social problems - both within the US, where more une qual states have worse problems, and when looked at across advance industri al countries.

ow as 5%". The interesting question isn't what it might be, but what it is .

rised that Dan couldn't.

The reason you can not find the answer using Google, is that what is commo nplace depends on how many there are. If there is only one, then it is not commonplace. If there are hundreds , then it is commonplace. So if there is 20 of something , then 5% is just 1 and that is not commonplace. But i f there are thousands , then 5% is commonplace.

If one believes the Wilshire 5000 really exists, then one must concede that there are about 5000 corporations in the U.S. And if there are 5000 corpo rations, then 5% would be 250. And if there are 250 corporations that hav e a common characteristic , then that characteristic is commonplace.

Now what I really do not understand is why Bill who does not live in the U .S. thinks he know more about it than those that live in the U.S. And why Bill thinks it is his duty to educate people about what the U.S. is like. There must be some word that describes someone who has limited knowledge an d yet thinks they have insights that others can not perceive and are comp elled to inform others of their perceived insights.

Dan