June-August global sea surface temperatures warmest since records kept

BenBurch · 17th September 2009, 05:40 PM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...e-el-nino-noaa

So much for global warming being over, eh?

DogB · 17th September 2009, 06:32 PM

If you pointedly ignore the HADSST2 and OV.v2SST datasets that is.

macdoc · 17th September 2009, 06:59 PM

and you of course have an explanation for the Mediterranean being 3 degrees up....

DogB · 17th September 2009, 07:24 PM

Originally Posted by macdoc

and you of course have an explanation for the Mediterranean being 3 degrees up....

Do you?

macdoc · 18th September 2009, 11:10 AM

Yes - there is more energy in the planetary systems and it shows up in ocean temperatures from time to time... - like the last few months world wide....

It's called Global Warming and we're the primary cause....

any more questions.....

macdoc · 19th September 2009, 02:40 PM

Record ocean temps despite a weak El Nino in the summer and only a moderate one forecast

http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/ana.../ensodisc.html

So we busted ocean temps

in ADDITION to Australia's record summer

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8235111.stm

odd that..for the GW has stopped crowd..

BenBurch · 19th September 2009, 06:56 PM

Originally Posted by DogB

If you pointedly ignore the HADSST2 and OV.v2SST datasets that is.

And you assert NOAA is doing that?

macdoc · 19th September 2009, 08:02 PM

and this just out
snip

Quote:

Published online 16 September 2009 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2009.917

News
Climate change warning from Greenland

Small rise in temperature thousands of years ago caused rapid melting of the Greenland ice sheet.

The Greenland ice sheet melted much more rapidly as a result of warmer temperatures in the recent past than previously estimated,

more
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/0909....2009.917.html

BenBurch · 19th September 2009, 08:35 PM

macdoc, as you will recall I predicted that would happen.

mhaze · 20th September 2009, 07:28 AM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...e-el-nino-noaa

So much for global warming being over, eh?

In their cherry picking they ignore satellite measurements...and Argo.

So much for an unbiased approach when seeking confirmation of prejudice.

BenBurch · 20th September 2009, 03:21 PM

Originally Posted by mhaze

In their cherry picking they ignore satellite measurements...and Argo.

So much for an unbiased approach when seeking confirmation of prejudice.

And your evidence they ignored that data is?

mhaze · 20th September 2009, 04:34 PM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

And your evidence they ignored that data is?

The confirmation of bias resulting in a report unhinged sufficiently to cause a Warmer to post on it ?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/1...er/#more-10897

Beerina · 20th September 2009, 05:15 PM

Originally Posted by macdoc

Yes - there is more energy in the planetary systems and it shows up in ocean temperatures from time to time... - like the last few months world wide....

It's called Global Warming and we're the primary cause....

any more questions.....

Just one: So?

Tumbleweed · 20th September 2009, 05:42 PM

So. like, what would happen if the entire lubricated Greenland ice sheet slid into the ocean at once, like a log on a lubricated skid road. One hell of a tidal wave I surmise and icebergs off Miami. It would make a great cheesy 90 minute TV disaster movie! I'll add to it to my 2012 scenarios along wth the Earth flipping, Yellowstone popping its cork, cosmic death rays, and the ever popular mega asteroid.
Sure glad I"M 200 feet above sea level!

DogB · 20th September 2009, 05:56 PM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

And you assert NOAA is doing that?

The datasets show different results. NOAA is quoting the one that shows record temps.

They're certainly not lying....

Tumbleweed · 20th September 2009, 05:57 PM

Question: Although the arctic ice is floating, it still concentrates a lot of weight as ice. What happens to that weight when it melts? Isn't the ice's weight then distributed world wide instead of just being concentrated in the arctic ocean. What would less weight at the pole do to Earth's equilibrium? Or is the amount so small as not to matter

DogB · 20th September 2009, 07:00 PM

Originally Posted by Tumbleweed

Question: Although the arctic ice is floating...

If it's floating then the weight is free to redistribute as it wants - isn't it?

BenBurch · 20th September 2009, 07:19 PM

Originally Posted by DogB

If it's floating then the weight is free to redistribute as it wants - isn't it?

No. It is geographically constrained as a solid. BTW, when sea ice melts, in spite of what they tell you, sea level does rise. Not much. But it does rise.

DogB · 20th September 2009, 07:44 PM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

No. It is geographically constrained as a solid.

Yeah but the water it's displacing isn't.

Originally Posted by BenBurch

BTW, when sea ice melts, in spite of what they tell you, sea level does rise. Not much. But it does rise.

Several orders of magnitude lower than thermal expansion. I think we can safely ignore it.

mhaze · 20th September 2009, 09:00 PM

Originally Posted by Tumbleweed

Question: Although the arctic ice is floating, it still concentrates a lot of weight as ice. What happens to that weight when it melts? Isn't the ice's weight then distributed world wide instead of just being concentrated in the arctic ocean. What would less weight at the pole do to Earth's equilibrium? Or is the amount so small as not to matter

Shucks yeah- Look ah ain't no dummy. See here it's like if all that stuff way up at top of the world melts, it goes down. Now jes like with ma truck, it's better if you gots a low "CG". (That's a science type word). Let that ice melt n the earth'll be more stable. See?

lomiller · 20th September 2009, 09:34 PM

Originally Posted by DogB

The datasets show different results. NOAA is quoting the one that shows record temps.

Or, you know, maybe they are releasing results based on the data they are working with. A skeptic does not approach a question by saying “I don’t like the results this data gives, so they need to find data that agrees with my beliefs”.

If you want data discarded you really need to come up with a reason better then some other data may back up your beliefs. In this case though we don’t really even have that, all we have are some kook bloggers saying it is and some others jumping in saying it must be so.

mhaze · 20th September 2009, 09:45 PM

Originally Posted by lomiller

Or, you know, maybe they are releasing results based on the data they are working with. A skeptic does not approach a question by saying “I don’t like the results this data gives, so they need to find data that agrees with my beliefs”.

If you want data discarded you really need to come up with a reason better then some other data may back up your beliefs. In this case though we don’t really even have that, all we have are some kook bloggers saying it is and some others jumping in saying it must be so.

So the issue is not with the scientists, but your AGW propaganists?

lomiller · 20th September 2009, 10:21 PM

Apparently NASA and NOAA are simply propagandists having nothing to do with science in mhaze's conspiracy driven world...

Wangler · 20th September 2009, 11:56 PM

Originally Posted by lomiller

Or, you know, maybe they are releasing results based on the data they are working with.

Yes, I don't think that NOAA deals with all of the ocean temperature data that exists in the world. No fault there.

What is too bad is that the alarmist article that was linked did not bring up the point that other data sets don't show a record.

If any cherry picking is being done, it is by the article writer, and probably not by NOAA.

DogB · 21st September 2009, 12:14 AM

Originally Posted by lomiller

Or, you know, maybe they are releasing results based on the data they are working with.

I never claimed otherwise.

Originally Posted by lomiller

A skeptic does not approach a question by saying “I don’t like the results this data gives, so they need to find data that agrees with my beliefs”.

No a skeptic says, "Let’s find the best data". Or even better, “Oh look we have three conflicting data sets, I wonder why?”

Originally Posted by lomiller

If you want data discarded you really need to come up with a reason better then some other data may back up your beliefs.

Huh, works both ways don't it?

Originally Posted by lomiller

In this case though we don’t really even have that, all we have are some kook bloggers saying it is and some others jumping in saying it must be so.

NOAA issued the press release. You don’t think there’s the slightest obligation on them to discuss possible alternative datasets? Especially when both the sats and argo dispute the ‘hottest eva!!!!’ meme?

BenBurch · 21st September 2009, 05:58 AM

Point me to the equivalent analysis of those other data sets, if it exists?

BenBurch · 21st September 2009, 06:00 AM

Here is the actual NOAA release; http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories...obalstats.html

lomiller · 21st September 2009, 10:27 AM

Originally Posted by Wangler

If any cherry picking is being done, it is by the article writer, and probably not by NOAA.

The statment in question comes from NOAA and is based on the data set they are using. If there is some official statement or peer reviewed paper based on HadSST I wasn’t able to find it, all there really seems to be out there based on HadSST is some tortured analysis from the usual suspects.

When someone reputable analyzed HadSST and has it show something different, maybe then it would be worth pointing to, until then there really isn’t anything out there supporting the claim HadSST gives wildly different results and even if there is there could be perfectly valid reasons for it like coverage area.

lomiller · 21st September 2009, 10:31 AM

Originally Posted by DogB

Or even better, “Oh look we have three conflicting data sets, I wonder why?”

I assume you have some offial statmets to back up the claim that other data do not agree witht the one from NASA?

See this is the real problem, some crackpot on the interent says they don't aggree and you immedicalty jump to the conclusion the offial statments are wrong/falawed/incompetent. This in now way resembes how a skeptic should act.

BenBurch · 21st September 2009, 03:19 PM

*crickets*

mhaze · 21st September 2009, 03:49 PM

Originally Posted by lomiller

I assume you have some offial statmets to back up the claim that other data do not agree witht the one from NASA?

See this is the real problem, some crackpot on the interent says they don't aggree and you immedicalty jump to the conclusion the offial statments are wrong/falawed/incompetent. This in now way resembes how a skeptic should act.

I aggree witht you that the offial statmets are not falawed, but I immedicalty conclude the interent poster in question resembes BenBurch.

(Yes you are being ridiculed, on a factual basis based on facts you provided in your factual statements, said facts being your ridiculous inability to spell, as well as multiple evidence of such assertion, being used creatively in a response which contains one only (1) of each factually incorrect spelling, language under consideration being English).

Or as DogB would put it in simplified WarmerNewSpeak:

Me too!

So there!

lomiller · 21st September 2009, 05:35 PM

Originally Posted by mhaze

I aggree witht you that the offial statmets are not falawed,

allow me to quote from the NOAA website

Quote:

The world’s ocean surface temperature was the warmest for any August on record, and the warmest on record averaged for any June-August (Northern Hemisphere summer/Southern Hemisphere winter) season according to NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. The preliminary analysis is based on records dating back to 1880.

BenBurch · 21st September 2009, 05:41 PM

He's got nothing, lomiller, other than his belief that any data contrary to his opinion must be bogus.

Wangler · 21st September 2009, 05:57 PM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Here is the actual NOAA release; http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories...obalstats.html

Thanks for the link!

The actual release does speak to other data:

"NCDC scientists also reported that the combined average global land and ocean surface temperature for August was second warmest on record, behind 1998."

DogB · 21st September 2009, 06:02 PM

Originally Posted by lomiller

I assume you have some offial statmets to back up the claim that other data do not agree witht the one from NASA?

Oh for dogs sake. Took me thirty seconds to do this. The other data sets are less accessible but I’ll crunch them if you insist – but seeing as I’ve proven my point maybe it’s beholden on you to back up your claim?

Originally Posted by lomiller

See this is the real problem, some crackpot on the interent says they don't aggree and you immedicalty jump to the conclusion the offial statments are wrong/falawed/incompetent.

Doubting data is the default setting of any scientist worth the name. Excuse me if I choose to behave in this way.

Originally Posted by lomiller

This in now way resembes how a skeptic should act.

Perhaps I’m better versed in the proper behaviour of a skeptic than you?

Originally Posted by BenBurch

*crickets*

I do have a life, a job, and a different time zone than you. (To me lomillers post went up at 2.31am)

Wangler · 21st September 2009, 06:11 PM

Originally Posted by lomiller

I assume you have some offial statmets to back up the claim that other data do not agree witht the one from NASA?

See this is the real problem, some crackpot on the interent says they don't aggree and you immedicalty jump to the conclusion the offial statments are wrong/falawed/incompetent. This in now way resembes how a skeptic should act.

How about some data? This is not an official statement, but I hope it suffices!

The data is HADSST2GL, and shows 1998 sea surface temp higher than this year.

DogB · 21st September 2009, 06:30 PM

Originally Posted by Wangler

How about some data?

Hee hee. Snap!

DogB · 21st September 2009, 06:53 PM

Originally Posted by Wangler

This is not an official statement...

What official statement would you expect them to make?
August sea temps are the ninth highest in the last dozen years!

Not exactly front page material.

BenBurch · 21st September 2009, 06:53 PM

I'll wait to see data from a marginally reliable source, thanks. You got that??

DogB · 21st September 2009, 07:08 PM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

I'll wait to see data from a marginally reliable source, thanks. You got that??

So you're suggesting that the woodfortrees data isn't even marginally reliable?

I guess you could go look at the data yourself - oh no wait a minute, no you can't because it's seeecretttt!

Quote:

Restricted Data Access

The Met Office wish to monitor the use of this data and require an acknowledgement of the data source if they are used in any publication. The online application for access to the Met Office SST data includes the Met Office Agreement to be electronically accepted.Please note that the Met Office data sets are available for bona fide academic research only (sorry no undergraduates). If you wish to access the Met Office data for commercial or personal purposes, please contact the Met Office directly.

Your application for accessing the HadSST2 data will be processed within a day of receipt. Provided your application is complete and fully meets the Met Office conditions, a web account will be activated to allow you access to the HadSST2 directories via your login account from the BADC WWW Browse Archive pages.

17th September 2009, 05:40 PM	#1
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 13,781	June-August global sea surface temperatures warmest since records kept http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...e-el-nino-noaa So much for global warming being over, eh?
	__________________ A Liberal Dose of Talk Dog is my co-pilot. GENERATION 7: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

17th September 2009, 06:32 PM	#2
DogB Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 1,264	If you pointedly ignore the HADSST2 and OV.v2SST datasets that is.
DogB Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 1,264	__________________ The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts. - Bertrand Russell

17th September 2009, 06:59 PM	#3
macdoc Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Planet earth on slow boil Posts: 2,616	and you of course have an explanation for the Mediterranean being 3 degrees up....
	__________________ _{Nature Reports Climate Change Copenhagen Climate Change Synthesis Report 2009 http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.com/} _{Anyone wishing a list of mainstream climate science sources to get up speed feel free to PM. Others have found the links useful.}

17th September 2009, 07:24 PM	#4
DogB Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 1,264	Originally Posted by macdoc and you of course have an explanation for the Mediterranean being 3 degrees up.... Do you?
DogB Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 1,264	__________________ The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts. - Bertrand Russell

18th September 2009, 11:10 AM	#5
macdoc Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Planet earth on slow boil Posts: 2,616	Yes - there is more energy in the planetary systems and it shows up in ocean temperatures from time to time... - like the last few months world wide.... It's called Global Warming and we're the primary cause.... any more questions.....
	__________________ _{Nature Reports Climate Change Copenhagen Climate Change Synthesis Report 2009 http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.com/} _{Anyone wishing a list of mainstream climate science sources to get up speed feel free to PM. Others have found the links useful.}

19th September 2009, 02:40 PM	#6
macdoc Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Planet earth on slow boil Posts: 2,616	Record ocean temps despite a weak El Nino in the summer and only a moderate one forecast http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/ana.../ensodisc.html So we busted ocean temps in ADDITION to Australia's record summer http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8235111.stm odd that..for the GW has stopped crowd..
	__________________ _{Nature Reports Climate Change Copenhagen Climate Change Synthesis Report 2009 http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.com/} _{Anyone wishing a list of mainstream climate science sources to get up speed feel free to PM. Others have found the links useful.} Last edited by macdoc; 19th September 2009 at 02:43 PM.

19th September 2009, 06:56 PM	#7
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 13,781	Originally Posted by DogB If you pointedly ignore the HADSST2 and OV.v2SST datasets that is. And you assert NOAA is doing that?
	__________________ A Liberal Dose of Talk Dog is my co-pilot. GENERATION 7: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

19th September 2009, 08:02 PM	#8
macdoc Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Planet earth on slow boil Posts: 2,616	and this just out snip Quote: Published online 16 September 2009 \| Nature \| doi:10.1038/news.2009.917 News Climate change warning from Greenland Small rise in temperature thousands of years ago caused rapid melting of the Greenland ice sheet. The Greenland ice sheet melted much more rapidly as a result of warmer temperatures in the recent past than previously estimated, more http://www.nature.com/news/2009/0909....2009.917.html
	__________________ _{Nature Reports Climate Change Copenhagen Climate Change Synthesis Report 2009 http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.com/} _{Anyone wishing a list of mainstream climate science sources to get up speed feel free to PM. Others have found the links useful.}

19th September 2009, 08:35 PM	#9
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 13,781	macdoc, as you will recall I predicted that would happen.
	__________________ A Liberal Dose of Talk Dog is my co-pilot. GENERATION 7: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

20th September 2009, 07:28 AM	#10
mhaze Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Woo*(+-1.10)^20=AGWwoo Posts: 8,234	Originally Posted by BenBurch http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...e-el-nino-noaa So much for global warming being over, eh? In their cherry picking they ignore satellite measurements...and Argo. So much for an unbiased approach when seeking confirmation of prejudice.
	__________________ Get your climate widget Climategate - History's Biggest Scam Poptech's List Climate Acronyms Last edited by mhaze; 20th September 2009 at 07:32 AM.

20th September 2009, 03:21 PM	#11
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 13,781	Originally Posted by mhaze In their cherry picking they ignore satellite measurements...and Argo. So much for an unbiased approach when seeking confirmation of prejudice. And your evidence they ignored that data is?
	__________________ A Liberal Dose of Talk Dog is my co-pilot. GENERATION 7: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

20th September 2009, 04:34 PM	#12
mhaze Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Woo*(+-1.10)^20=AGWwoo Posts: 8,234	Originally Posted by BenBurch And your evidence they ignored that data is? The confirmation of bias resulting in a report unhinged sufficiently to cause a Warmer to post on it ? http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/1...er/#more-10897
	__________________ Get your climate widget Climategate - History's Biggest Scam Poptech's List Climate Acronyms

20th September 2009, 05:15 PM	#13
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 14,373	Originally Posted by macdoc Yes - there is more energy in the planetary systems and it shows up in ocean temperatures from time to time... - like the last few months world wide.... It's called Global Warming and we're the primary cause.... any more questions..... Just one: So?
	__________________ Reid Fleming, World's Toughest Milkman, in *A Day Like Any Other* The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

20th September 2009, 05:42 PM	#14
Tumbleweed Muse Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Port Orchard, WA Posts: 541	So. like, what would happen if the entire lubricated Greenland ice sheet slid into the ocean at once, like a log on a lubricated skid road. One hell of a tidal wave I surmise and icebergs off Miami. It would make a great cheesy 90 minute TV disaster movie! I'll add to it to my 2012 scenarios along wth the Earth flipping, Yellowstone popping its cork, cosmic death rays, and the ever popular mega asteroid. Sure glad I"M 200 feet above sea level!
	__________________ Relativity and astrophysics - child's play compared to remodeling

20th September 2009, 05:56 PM	#15
DogB Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 1,264	Originally Posted by BenBurch And you assert NOAA is doing that? The datasets show different results. NOAA is quoting the one that shows record temps. They're certainly not lying....
DogB Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 1,264	__________________ The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts. - Bertrand Russell

20th September 2009, 05:57 PM	#16
Tumbleweed Muse Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Port Orchard, WA Posts: 541	Question: Although the arctic ice is floating, it still concentrates a lot of weight as ice. What happens to that weight when it melts? Isn't the ice's weight then distributed world wide instead of just being concentrated in the arctic ocean. What would less weight at the pole do to Earth's equilibrium? Or is the amount so small as not to matter
	__________________ Relativity and astrophysics - child's play compared to remodeling

20th September 2009, 07:00 PM	#17
DogB Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 1,264	Originally Posted by Tumbleweed Question: Although the arctic ice is floating... If it's floating then the weight is free to redistribute as it wants - isn't it?
DogB Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 1,264	__________________ The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts. - Bertrand Russell

20th September 2009, 07:19 PM	#18
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 13,781	Originally Posted by DogB If it's floating then the weight is free to redistribute as it wants - isn't it? No. It is geographically constrained as a solid. BTW, when sea ice melts, in spite of what they tell you, sea level does rise. Not much. But it does rise.
	__________________ A Liberal Dose of Talk Dog is my co-pilot. GENERATION 7: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

20th September 2009, 07:44 PM	#19
DogB Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 1,264	Originally Posted by BenBurch No. It is geographically constrained as a solid. Yeah but the water it's displacing isn't. Originally Posted by BenBurch BTW, when sea ice melts, in spite of what they tell you, sea level does rise. Not much. But it does rise. Several orders of magnitude lower than thermal expansion. I think we can safely ignore it.
DogB Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 1,264	__________________ The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts. - Bertrand Russell

20th September 2009, 09:00 PM	#20
mhaze Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Woo*(+-1.10)^20=AGWwoo Posts: 8,234	Originally Posted by Tumbleweed Question: Although the arctic ice is floating, it still concentrates a lot of weight as ice. What happens to that weight when it melts? Isn't the ice's weight then distributed world wide instead of just being concentrated in the arctic ocean. What would less weight at the pole do to Earth's equilibrium? Or is the amount so small as not to matter Shucks yeah- Look ah ain't no dummy. See here it's like if all that stuff way up at top of the world melts, it goes down. Now jes like with ma truck, it's better if you gots a low "CG". (That's a science type word). Let that ice melt n the earth'll be more stable. See?
	__________________ Get your climate widget Climategate - History's Biggest Scam Poptech's List Climate Acronyms

20th September 2009, 09:34 PM	#21
lomiller Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 2,340	Originally Posted by DogB The datasets show different results. NOAA is quoting the one that shows record temps. Or, you know, maybe they are releasing results based on the data they are working with. A skeptic does not approach a question by saying “I don’t like the results this data gives, so they need to find data that agrees with my beliefs”. If you want data discarded you really need to come up with a reason better then some other data may back up your beliefs. In this case though we don’t really even have that, all we have are some kook bloggers saying it is and some others jumping in saying it must be so.
lomiller Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 2,340	__________________ War, war never changes...

20th September 2009, 09:45 PM	#22
mhaze Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Woo*(+-1.10)^20=AGWwoo Posts: 8,234	Originally Posted by lomiller Or, you know, maybe they are releasing results based on the data they are working with. A skeptic does not approach a question by saying “I don’t like the results this data gives, so they need to find data that agrees with my beliefs”. If you want data discarded you really need to come up with a reason better then some other data may back up your beliefs. In this case though we don’t really even have that, all we have are some kook bloggers saying it is and some others jumping in saying it must be so. So the issue is not with the scientists, but your AGW propaganists?
	__________________ Get your climate widget Climategate - History's Biggest Scam Poptech's List Climate Acronyms

20th September 2009, 10:21 PM	#23
lomiller Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 2,340	Apparently NASA and NOAA are simply propagandists having nothing to do with science in mhaze's conspiracy driven world...
lomiller Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 2,340	__________________ War, war never changes...

20th September 2009, 11:56 PM	#24
Wangler Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: WA State Posts: 1,734	Originally Posted by lomiller Or, you know, maybe they are releasing results based on the data they are working with. Yes, I don't think that NOAA deals with all of the ocean temperature data that exists in the world. No fault there. What is too bad is that the alarmist article that was linked did not bring up the point that other data sets don't show a record. If any cherry picking is being done, it is by the article writer, and probably not by NOAA.

21st September 2009, 12:14 AM	#25
DogB Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 1,264	Originally Posted by lomiller Or, you know, maybe they are releasing results based on the data they are working with. I never claimed otherwise. Originally Posted by lomiller A skeptic does not approach a question by saying “I don’t like the results this data gives, so they need to find data that agrees with my beliefs”. No a skeptic says, "Let’s find the best data". Or even better, “Oh look we have three conflicting data sets, I wonder why?” Originally Posted by lomiller If you want data discarded you really need to come up with a reason better then some other data may back up your beliefs. Huh, works both ways don't it? Originally Posted by lomiller In this case though we don’t really even have that, all we have are some kook bloggers saying it is and some others jumping in saying it must be so. NOAA issued the press release. You don’t think there’s the slightest obligation on them to discuss possible alternative datasets? Especially when both the sats and argo dispute the ‘hottest eva!!!!’ meme?
DogB Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 1,264	__________________ The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts. - Bertrand Russell

21st September 2009, 05:58 AM	#26
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 13,781	Point me to the equivalent analysis of those other data sets, if it exists?
	__________________ A Liberal Dose of Talk Dog is my co-pilot. GENERATION 7: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

21st September 2009, 06:00 AM	#27
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 13,781	Here is the actual NOAA release; http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories...obalstats.html
	__________________ A Liberal Dose of Talk Dog is my co-pilot. GENERATION 7: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

21st September 2009, 10:27 AM	#28
lomiller Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 2,340	Originally Posted by Wangler If any cherry picking is being done, it is by the article writer, and probably not by NOAA. The statment in question comes from NOAA and is based on the data set they are using. If there is some official statement or peer reviewed paper based on HadSST I wasn’t able to find it, all there really seems to be out there based on HadSST is some tortured analysis from the usual suspects. When someone reputable analyzed HadSST and has it show something different, maybe then it would be worth pointing to, until then there really isn’t anything out there supporting the claim HadSST gives wildly different results and even if there is there could be perfectly valid reasons for it like coverage area.
lomiller Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 2,340	__________________ War, war never changes...

21st September 2009, 10:31 AM	#29
lomiller Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 2,340	Originally Posted by DogB Or even better, “Oh look we have three conflicting data sets, I wonder why?” I assume you have some offial statmets to back up the claim that other data do not agree witht the one from NASA? See this is the real problem, some crackpot on the interent says they don't aggree and you immedicalty jump to the conclusion the offial statments are wrong/falawed/incompetent. This in now way resembes how a skeptic should act.
lomiller Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 2,340	__________________ War, war never changes...

21st September 2009, 03:19 PM	#30
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 13,781	crickets
	__________________ A Liberal Dose of Talk Dog is my co-pilot. GENERATION 7: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

21st September 2009, 03:49 PM	#31
mhaze Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Woo*(+-1.10)^20=AGWwoo Posts: 8,234	Originally Posted by lomiller I assume you have some offial statmets to back up the claim that other data do not agree witht the one from NASA? See this is the real problem, some crackpot on the interent says they don't aggree and you immedicalty jump to the conclusion the offial statments are wrong/falawed/incompetent. This in now way resembes how a skeptic should act. I aggree witht you that the offial statmets are not falawed, but I immedicalty conclude the interent poster in question resembes BenBurch. (Yes you are being ridiculed, on a factual basis based on facts you provided in your factual statements, said facts being your ridiculous inability to spell, as well as multiple evidence of such assertion, being used creatively in a response which contains one only (1) of each factually incorrect spelling, language under consideration being English). Or as DogB would put it in simplified WarmerNewSpeak: Me too! So there!
	__________________ Get your climate widget Climategate - History's Biggest Scam Poptech's List Climate Acronyms Last edited by mhaze; 21st September 2009 at 04:19 PM.

21st September 2009, 05:35 PM	#32
lomiller Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 2,340	Originally Posted by mhaze I aggree witht you that the offial statmets are not falawed, allow me to quote from the NOAA website Quote: The world’s ocean surface temperature was the warmest for any August on record, and the warmest on record averaged for any June-August (Northern Hemisphere summer/Southern Hemisphere winter) season according to NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. The preliminary analysis is based on records dating back to 1880.
lomiller Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 2,340	__________________ War, war never changes...

21st September 2009, 05:41 PM	#33
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 13,781	He's got nothing, lomiller, other than his *belief* that any data contrary to his opinion must be bogus.
	__________________ A Liberal Dose of Talk Dog is my co-pilot. GENERATION 7: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

21st September 2009, 05:57 PM	#34
Wangler Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: WA State Posts: 1,734	Originally Posted by BenBurch Here is the actual NOAA release; http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories...obalstats.html Thanks for the link! The actual release does speak to other data: "NCDC scientists also reported that the combined average global land and ocean surface temperature for August was second warmest on record, behind 1998."

21st September 2009, 06:02 PM	#35
DogB Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 1,264	Originally Posted by lomiller I assume you have some offial statmets to back up the claim that other data do not agree witht the one from NASA? Oh for dogs sake. Took me thirty seconds to do this. The other data sets are less accessible but I’ll crunch them if you insist – but seeing as I’ve proven my point maybe it’s beholden on you to back up your claim? Originally Posted by lomiller See this is the real problem, some crackpot on the interent says they don't aggree and you immedicalty jump to the conclusion the offial statments are wrong/falawed/incompetent. Doubting data is the default setting of any scientist worth the name. Excuse me if I choose to behave in this way. Originally Posted by lomiller This in now way resembes how a skeptic should act. Perhaps I’m better versed in the proper behaviour of a skeptic than you? Originally Posted by BenBurch crickets I do have a life, a job, and a different time zone than you. (To me lomillers post went up at 2.31am)
DogB Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 1,264	__________________ The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts. - Bertrand Russell Last edited by DogB; 21st September 2009 at 06:10 PM.