• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

July, 2016 Hottest Month Ever Recorded

Quaestio said:
... that you'll probably make the same old tired faulty claims about GISS anomaly datasets over and over again because you couldn't be bothered to RTFM on the GISS website even after Mithrae (and probably many others before him) showed you where you were going wrong?
Click to expand...

cg5374ba8962d4e.jpg
 
Last edited:
Quaestio said:
Perhaps it should be pointed out that Spencer and Christie still haven't published a paper on the methodology for their UAH version 6.x beta (it's almost 18mths now).

RSS have revised their methodology and are working on RSS VERSION 4.0
Unlike Spencer and Christie, Carl Mears and his RSS group published a paper before releasing a new version. They haven't released version 4 of TLT (lower troposphere) yet
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0744.1



The satellite datasets are far from stable yet.
Yale Climate Connections
Satellite or Surface Temps: Which is More Accurate?



In an email with AP, Dr Carl Mears from RSS says satellite data sets have about 5 times the margin of error compared to surface data sets.

Earth's temperature depends on where you put thermometer
"Carl Mears, senior scientist for Remote Sensing Systems, told The Associated Press in an email: "The satellite measurements do not measure the surface warming. They are measurements of the average temperature of thick layers of the atmosphere" about 50,000 feet off the ground."

"For impacts on human society and the environment, the surface data are more important," Mears said. Mears said his analysis of his own satellite data has five times the margin of error of ground measurements. That's because satellites use complex mathematical algorithms and thousands of bits of code to translate wavelength measurements into temperature readings"
Click to expand...
The FAQ within the GISS data set talks about the errors with their methodology.
Data.GISS: GISTEMP ? The Elusive Absolute Surface Air Temperature
Q. What do we mean by daily mean SAT?
A. Again, there is no universally accepted correct answer. Should we note the temperature every 6 hours and report the mean,
should we do it every 2 hours, hourly, have a machine record it every second, or simply take the average of the highest and lowest temperature of the day?
On some days the various methods may lead to drastically different results.
Click to expand...
If you understand anything about data collection and errors, you would understand that the differences in their collection methodologies
could cause significant errors.
 
Quaestio said:
Perhaps it should be pointed out that Spencer and Christie still haven't published a paper on the methodology for their UAH version 6.x beta (it's almost 18mths now).
Click to expand...

NOTE: This is the thirteenth monthly update with our new Version 6.0 dataset. Differences versus the old Version 5.6 dataset are discussed here. Note we are now at “beta5” for Version 6, and the paper describing the methodology is in peer review.

UAH V6 Global Temperature Update for April, 2016: +0.71 deg. C ...

www.drroyspencer.com/.../uah-v6-global-temperature-update-for-april-2016-0-71-de...


May 2, 2016 - The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) ... The “official” UAHglobal image for April, 2016 should be available in ..
 
longview said:
The FAQ within the GISS data set talks about the errors with their methodology.
Data.GISS: GISTEMP ? The Elusive Absolute Surface Air Temperature

If you understand anything about data collection and errors, you would understand that the differences in their collection methodologies
could cause significant errors.
Click to expand...

It's amazing how you still managed to miss reading what Mithrae pointed out to you from the FAQ.

Mithrae said:
They're monthly anomalies; that month's anomaly compared to previous months. This is covered under "Basic terminology" in GISS's FAQs:


Data.GISS: GISTEMP -- Frequently Asked Questions
Basic Terminology

Q.*What are temperature*anomalies*(and why prefer them to*absolute*temperatures)?
A.*Temperature anomalies indicate how much warmer or colder it is than*normal*for a particular place and time. For the GISS analysis,*normal*always means the average over the 30-year period 1951-1980 for that place and time of year. This base period is specific to GISS, not universal. But note that trends do not depend on the choice of the base period: If the absolute temperature at a specific location is 2 degrees higher than a year ago, so is the corresponding temperature anomaly, no matter what base period is selected, since the normal temperature used as base point is the same for both years.

Note that regional mean anomalies (in particular global anomalies) are*not*computed from the current absolute mean and the 1951-80 mean for that region, but from station temperature anomalies. Finding absolute regional means encounters significant difficulties that create large uncertainties. This is why the GISS analysis deals with anomalies rather than absolute temperatures. For a more detailed discussion of that topic, please see*"The Elusive Absolute Temperature".

Q.*Is the month with the highest anomaly the warmest month overall?
A:*No. There is a seasonal cycle in global mean temperature which means that on average, July and August are roughly 3.6ºC (6.5ºF) warmer than December and January. The*graph at right*shows how much warmer each month is than the annual global mean (derived from the MERRA2 reanalysis over 1980-2015 with an uncertainty range). An anomaly say of 1°C in December would be exceptionally warm for that month, but it is still not warmer than the average July.​
Click to expand...
 
Jack Hays said:
NOTE: This is the thirteenth monthly update with our new Version 6.0 dataset. Differences versus the old Version 5.6 dataset are discussed here. Note we are now at “beta5” for Version 6, and the paper describing the methodology is in peer review.

UAH V6 Global Temperature Update for April, 2016: +0.71 deg. C ...

www.drroyspencer.com/.../uah-v6-global-temperature-update-for-april-2016-0-71-de...


May 2, 2016 - The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) ... The “official” UAHglobal image for April, 2016 should be available in ..
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting that. It's supports what I said. Although it's only been about 16mths, not 18mths, that Christie and Spencer have been using their UAH beta version 6.x and STILL haven't published their paper. While Carl Mears and his RSS group published their paper well BEFORE releasing version 4 of RSS, and still haven't released the TLT product. What's up with that?
 
Quaestio said:
Thanks for posting that. It's supports what I said. Although it's only been about 16mths, not 18mths, that Christie and Spencer have been using their UAH beta version 6.x and STILL haven't published their paper. While Carl Mears and his RSS group published their paper well BEFORE releasing version 4 of RSS, and still haven't released the TLT product. What's up with that?
Click to expand...

It's in peer review.
 
Quaestio said:
It's amazing how you still managed to miss reading what Mithrae pointed out to you from the FAQ.
Click to expand...
And yet, with the data from the GISS as written, you cannot tell what the temperature really was, or if July was any sort of a record.
You own citation betrays you,
A.*Temperature anomalies indicate how much warmer or colder it is than*normal*for a particular place and time.
For the GISS analysis,*normal*always means the average over the 30-year period 1951-1980 for that place and time of year. This base period is specific to GISS, not universal.
Click to expand...
Since they do not provide the anomaly base, the *normal*, there is no reference to compare one month to any other.
 
longview said:
And yet, with the data from the GISS as written, you cannot tell what the temperature really was, or if July was any sort of a record.
You own citation betrays you,

Since they do not provide the anomaly base, the *normal*, there is no reference to compare one month to any other.
Click to expand...

Of course, the people at GISS are telling you it's a record, but as we know, GISS is in on the conspiracy too...
 
Threegoofs said:
Of course, the people at GISS are telling you it's a record, but as we know, GISS is in on the conspiracy too...
Click to expand...

There was a rather marvelous moment on the ABC's Q&A the other week, after a 'sceptic' debating with a scientist declared that the temperature data had been corrupted. "By who?" asked the scientist, and the poor hapless sceptic said "By NASA..." *howls of laughter from the audience*

Bit later on the 'sceptic' declares that the 97% figure has been debunked (fair enough), but instead of saying it's only 90 or 80 or even 70%, insisted that AGW is accepted by only 0.3% of scientists! Of course the sceptic was just a far-right politician - not even on the intellectual level of an Anthony Watts, who probably would at least be bright enough not to tell a general audience that he's accusing NASA of fraud - but when this is the kind of rhetoric and hyperbole and sometimes outright lies constantly circulated and promoted (often "to open up discussion," a la Judith Curry) the poor rubes really don't stand a chance.

Experts and Empirical Evidence | Q&A | ABC TV
 
Last edited:
Threegoofs said:
Of course, the people at GISS are telling you it's a record, but as we know, GISS is in on the conspiracy too...
Click to expand...
As usual, missing the point, from the data presented to the public, an anomaly without a reference, is just a number.
 
Threegoofs said:
Apparently, reading the OP is beyond your grasp.
Click to expand...
Nope the readings reported in the GISS data set for July are anomaly numbers, based on the
averages of July numbers from 1951 to 1980.
Yet the data set reports the July numbers for July 1951 to 1980 and the same anomaly as the rest.
In fact the average for that period is .1. (the question should be .1 what?)
Without a reference the anomaly readings are meaningless.
Anomaly | Define Anomaly at Dictionary.com
6. Meteorology. the amount of deviation of a meteorological quantity from the accepted normal value of that quantity.
Click to expand...
So again I will ask you, What is the GISS global number for a normal July in a real temperature unit.
 
Mithrae said:
There was a rather marvelous moment on the ABC's Q&A the other week, after a 'sceptic' debating with a scientist declared that the temperature data had been corrupted. "By who?" asked the scientist, and the poor hapless sceptic said "By NASA..." *howls of laughter from the audience*

Bit later on the 'sceptic' declares that the 97% figure has been debunked (fair enough), but instead of saying it's only 90 or 80 or even 70%, insisted that AGW is accepted by only 0.3% of scientists! Of course the sceptic was just a far-right politician - not even on the intellectual level of an Anthony Watts, who probably would at least be bright enough not to tell a general audience that he's accusing NASA of fraud - but when this is the kind of rhetoric and hyperbole and sometimes outright lies constantly circulated and promoted (often "to open up discussion," a la Judith Curry) the poor rubes really don't stand a chance.

Experts and Empirical Evidence | Q&A | ABC TV
Click to expand...

No more educated than the warmers here who regurgitate misleading things.

There are idiots on both sides!
 
My home province of Alberta, Canada has among the largest groups of climate-change deniers in Canada. This is largely because of the large oil and gas industry here that employs hundreds of thousands of people. Admitting that carbon emissions are causing global warming is tough for folks who know that it could lead to (more) job losses.
 
Threegoofs said:
Of course, the people at GISS are telling you it's a record, but as we know, GISS is in on the conspiracy too...
Click to expand...

The possibility that he's the one getting it wrong never entered his head? He doesn't understand something, so it must be GISS that is fudging something or doing something wrong? It looks to be a common theme with climate truthers.
 
Last edited:
Quaestio said:
The possibility that he's the one getting it wrong never entered his head? He doesn't understand something, so it must be GISS that is fudging something or doing something wrong? It looks to be a common theme with climate truthers.
Click to expand...
So let me ask you, what is the baseline temperature of July that the July anomalies are compared to?
 
longview said:
Nope the readings reported in the GISS data set for July are anomaly numbers, based on the
averages of July numbers from 1951 to 1980.
Yet the data set reports the July numbers for July 1951 to 1980 and the same anomaly as the rest.
In fact the average for that period is .1. (the question should be .1 what?)
Click to expand...

0.1 hundredths of a degree (ie. 0.001 degrees). Of course without previous rounding the 'exact' figure would be an average anomaly of zero in the baseline period.


longview said:
So let me ask you, what is the baseline temperature of July that the July anomalies are compared to?
Click to expand...

About 15.3°C. How is that information useful to you?
 
JackA said:
Not merely the hottest July but the hottest month since record keeping began, even with El Niño "losing its grip."

July 2016 Was The Hottest Month Ever Recorded
Click to expand...

Perth shivers through coldest morning in four years as temperature plunges to 0.6C - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

San Francisco chilled by coldest July in years, after hottest February temperatures in three decades - SFGate

Keep warm, weatherman says July to be even colder - Nairobi News

Sydney weather sees coldest day in July in TWO decades   | Daily Mail Online

Pick the right cherries around the world and you can find anything you want to.

You aren't going to achieve the wealth re distribution you seek with this agenda any more. The public don't believe it and governments are quietly backing away from it and cutting funding

I post here so infrequently now because I realise this latest eco political scare has run its course and that your side lost.

Don't worry I'm sure another costly eco bandwagon will come along soon though. It always does :wink:
 
Last edited:
Mithrae said:
0.1 hundredths of a degree (ie. 0.001 degrees). Of course without previous rounding the 'exact' figure would be an average anomaly of zero in the baseline period.




About 15.3°C. How is that information useful to you?
Click to expand...
About 15.3°C, firstly "about" implies some level of uncertainty,
secondly, without knowing the actual baseline, the other numbers are meaningless.
Also since they are saying the July number is the hottest month EVER, then the monthly
baselines become the only way to validate such a statement.
 
flogger said:
Perth shivers through coldest morning in four years as temperature plunges to 0.6C - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

San Francisco chilled by coldest July in years, after hottest February temperatures in three decades - SFGate

Keep warm, weatherman says July to be even colder - Nairobi News

Sydney weather sees coldest day in July in TWO decades * | Daily Mail Online

Pick the right cherries around the world and you can find anything you want to.

You aren't going to achieve the wealth re distribution you seek with this agenda any more. The public don't believe it and governments are quietly backing away from it and cutting funding

I post here so infrequently now because I realise this latest eco political scare has run its course and that your side lost.

Don't worry I'm sure another costly eco bandwagon will come along soon though. It always does :wink:
Click to expand...

Of the sad arguments that prop up Denier World the most pathetic it seems to me is the idea that the nerds we knew in high school, the kids who loved science more than anything, if they went into climate science, are all betraying their profession in order to conspire for "a wealth distribution agenda". Not only the American nerds but like nerds around the globe.
 
JackA said:
Of the sad arguments that prop up Denier World the most pathetic it seems to me is the idea that the nerds we knew in high school, the kids who loved science more than anything, if they went into climate science, are all betraying their profession in order to conspire for "a wealth distribution agenda". Not only the American nerds but like nerds around the globe.
Click to expand...

Nobody cares any more my friend. Public concern about this peaked 10 years ago and its been all downhill since then. They won't pay for something they no longer believe so I guess the rich will get to keep their money :wink:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom