July was the hottest month ever on Earth

Message

nic007 · #81 Post by **nic007** » Mon 18 Nov 2019, 14:19

Clutching at straws. So, we are down to rise in only minimum temperatures now and maximum temps are not so important. Laughable.

jafadmin · #82 Post by **jafadmin** » Mon 18 Nov 2019, 15:15

mavrothal wrote:So I went through the program and the provided data be the program author.
Below is the results for the US that this "celebrated" program provides.
And that's without checking the code or updating the data (that miss the last 2 hot years as they are up to 2017)

The maximum temperature is decreased (you ignorant climate terrorists)
But the minimum temperature is increased it says (Yeah. Nice worm nights)
So the range of temperature change is smaller (Good. not need to change clothes all day)
Bus somehow the average temperature is increasing (Neah. Should be a program bug)

Use the version of the program that I updated. It's the CO2 array that only goes up to 2017. You can also specify "winter" in that one.
The "save image" button will crop it to just the graph.
Run the updated script I wrote. It will get you the most up-to-date daily dataset.
And yes, that trend shows increased average warming of 1/3 of a degree Fahrenheit over the last 124 years (1/5 of a degree celsius)

musher0 · #83 Post by **musher0** » Mon 18 Nov 2019, 15:35

Suggestion :

I'd look for an order by Pres. Trump to the NOAA to alter this data so the UN
Intergovernmental Experts Group on Climate Evolution ( aka IPCC ) appears
to be lying -- and thus justify the US withdrawal from the Paris Accord.

Also, this order would have been delivered by a lawyer named Giuliani.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As I said above, no data on weather or the environment coming out of a US agency
during Trump's mandate should be trusted, since he silenced the US gov't scientists.

Believe the similar Canadians' experience during PM Harper's "reign" (2005-2015)
on this.

Find a truly independent source of data.

jafadmin · #84 Post by **jafadmin** » Mon 18 Nov 2019, 16:13

musher0 wrote:Suggestion :

I'd look for an order by Pres. Trump to the NOAA to alter this data so the UN
Intergovernmental Experts Group on Climate Evolution ( aka IPCC ) appears
to be lying -- and thus justify the US withdrawal from the Paris Accord.

Also, this order would have been delivered by a lawyer named Giuliani.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As I said above, no data on weather or the environment coming out of a US agency
during Trump's mandate should be trusted, since he silenced the US gov't scientists.

Believe the similar Canadians' experience during PM Harper's "reign" (2005-2015)
on this.

Find a truly independent source of data.

I think your tinfoil had my be a bit too tight there, buddy.

1) IPCC =Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change https://www.ipcc.ch
2) Please provide evidence to support your allegation that the data is bad
3) Exactly what data is IPCC using? It's a secret, right?

Here is the bottom line: Science relies on publicly available Data and methodology for peer review. Right now, the US is the only one doing this.

Another cool thing about the US is that you can go back hundreds of years and read news and publication articles that support the validity of the historical GHCN data (unless you're going to claim Trump ordered all historic news and publications in the US to be altered, too).

musher0 · #85 Post by **musher0** » Mon 18 Nov 2019, 16:52

You said:
> Right now, the US is the only one doing this.

Oh really? All developed and even developing countries in the world have weather
stations that collect data and keep a history of it.

In the IPCC English title, there is no mention of experts, which led you to think their
members were "Trillionnaires" (who bought their way in?) . I prefer my "retranlation"
from the French name.

Strangely, there is mention of experts in the Spanish title too:
El Grupo Intergubernamental de Expertos sobre el Cambio Climático
Source: https://archive.ipcc.ch/home_languages_ ... nish.shtml

In any case, it's easy to substitute a data file for another. I'll return the question:
How did you check that the file you downloaded is the real thing?

As to the IPCC reports, go to https://www.ipcc.ch, click on the "Reports"
sub-menu and take your pick. There's over a dozen of them. There should be a
bibliography in each. No secrets.

Finally I said "during Pres. Trump's mandate". He doesn't need to care about the
environmental data before his term. Politically, he needs to prove himself right --
now, not yesterday.

Terry H · #86 Post by **Terry H** » Mon 18 Nov 2019, 16:56

jafadmin wrote: Right now, the US is the only one doing this.

The Australian Bureau of Meteorology does provide historical climate data, unfortunately it is a paid service.

Data also available for Europe from:

European Climate Assessment & Dataset

Welcome to the website of the European Climate Assessment & Dataset project. Presented is information on changes in weather and climate extremes, as well as the daily dataset needed to monitor and analyse these extremes. ECA&D was initiated by the ECSN in 1998 and has received financial support from the EUMETNET and the European Commission.

https://www.ecad.eu//dailydata/index.php

jafadmin · #87 Post by **jafadmin** » Mon 18 Nov 2019, 17:02

musher0 wrote: How did you check that the file you downloaded is the real thing?

The easiest way is to verify it, as I stated above, is to compare it to what was published at any given time in history about the weather. Great sources are historical articles in the Washington Post and New York Times from 100 years ago, etc ..

But while we are on that subject, how do you check that the data the IPCC is using is the real thing? That data isn't available to you or me. That means it can't be peer reviewed. That means it isn't science.

jafadmin · #88 Post by **jafadmin** » Mon 18 Nov 2019, 17:05

Terry H wrote:
jafadmin wrote: Right now, the US is the only one doing this.
The Australian Bureau of Meteorology does provide historical climate data, unfortunately it is a paid service.

Data also available for Europe from:

European Climate Assessment & Dataset

Welcome to the website of the European Climate Assessment & Dataset project. Presented is information on changes in weather and climate extremes, as well as the daily dataset needed to monitor and analyse these extremes. ECA&D was initiated by the ECSN in 1998 and has received financial support from the EUMETNET and the European Commission.

https://www.ecad.eu//dailydata/index.php

> "For questions about these data and conditions for access to the full dataset, please contact the ECA&D Project Team."

musher0 · #89 Post by **musher0** » Mon 18 Nov 2019, 17:06

I edited my reply above (added two paragraphs) while you were responding.
Please re-read. TIA.

musher0 · #90 Post by **musher0** » Mon 18 Nov 2019, 17:13

jafadmin wrote:
Terry H wrote:
jafadmin wrote: Right now, the US is the only one doing this.
The Australian Bureau of Meteorology does provide historical climate data, unfortunately it is a paid service.

Data also available for Europe from:

European Climate Assessment & Dataset

Welcome to the website of the European Climate Assessment & Dataset project. Presented is information on changes in weather and climate extremes, as well as the daily dataset needed to monitor and analyse these extremes. ECA&D was initiated by the ECSN in 1998 and has received financial support from the EUMETNET and the European Commission.

https://www.ecad.eu//dailydata/index.php
> "For questions about these data and conditions for access to the full dataset, please contact the ECA&D Project Team."

Well... Contact them!

jafadmin · #91 Post by **jafadmin** » Mon 18 Nov 2019, 17:21

At the end of the day, this is the reality: If you refuse to accept evidence that conflicts with your beliefs and deem that evidence as "bad evidence", then how is it possible for you to believe in anything?

How is it possible for you to expect others to accept the validity of your belief?

Either there is scientific data that can be peer reviewed by the public, or there isn't.

American universities all have historical copies of the USHCN data. They download and archive it on a regular basis. It is trivial to compare the historical data as of 20 years ago to that same historical data in the datasets that you would download now.

If there was a discrepancy in the data from the 1930's, or instance, in the dataset downloaded in 1990, and the one downloaded today, you would have evidence of data tampering. We don't have that ..

In other words, there is no evidence of "Trump's scientists" altering the historical weather data at USHCN. It is way too easy to detect.

jafadmin · #92 Post by **jafadmin** » Mon 18 Nov 2019, 17:23

musher0 wrote: Well... Contact them!

You first

We'll wait ..

mavrothal · #93 Post by **mavrothal** » Mon 18 Nov 2019, 18:51

jafadmin wrote:At the end of the day, this is the reality: If you refuse to accept evidence that conflicts with your beliefs and deem that evidence as "bad evidence", then how is it possible for you to believe in anything?

How is it possible for you to expect others to accept the validity of your belief?

Either there is scientific data that can be peer reviewed by the public, or there isn't.

Correct! And the vast majority of peer reviewed by scientist or the public data point unambiguously to global warming.
Would be nice to see some peer-reviewed data suggesting global cooling or even stability.

And in case the publication you think it says that is not openly accessible, there is Sci-Hub were you can access almost every scientific publication

On a different note, do you really think that if a 700 lines script could reveal data fudging we would still be discussing global warming?
In the far off chance the thousands of scientists are not paid by the lluminati and are actually accurate, the question is would it be any time left?

backi · #94 Post by **backi** » Mon 18 Nov 2019, 19:23

the question is would it be any time left?

Hey Man... Situation really that bad ????

..... is there any Chance left to finish my Cup of my Coffee .

Terry H · #95 Post by **Terry H** » Mon 18 Nov 2019, 19:41

jafadmin wrote:
Terry H wrote:
jafadmin wrote: Right now, the US is the only one doing this.
The Australian Bureau of Meteorology does provide historical climate data, unfortunately it is a paid service.

Data also available for Europe from:

European Climate Assessment & Dataset

Welcome to the website of the European Climate Assessment & Dataset project. Presented is information on changes in weather and climate extremes, as well as the daily dataset needed to monitor and analyse these extremes. ECA&D was initiated by the ECSN in 1998 and has received financial support from the EUMETNET and the European Commission.

https://www.ecad.eu//dailydata/index.php
> "For questions about these data and conditions for access to the full dataset, please contact the ECA&D Project Team."

If you Click on the Download Links on the bottom of the page I linked to above, you can download without having any other contact.

musher0 · #96 Post by **musher0** » Mon 18 Nov 2019, 23:31

jafadmin wrote:At the end of the day, this is the reality: If you refuse to accept evidence that conflicts with your beliefs and deem that evidence as "bad evidence", then how is it possible for you to believe in anything?

How is it possible for you to expect others to accept the validity of your belief?

Either there is scientific data that can be peer reviewed by the public, or there isn't.

American universities all have historical copies of the USHCN data. They download and archive it on a regular basis. It is trivial to compare the historical data as of 20 years ago to that same historical data in the datasets that you would download now.

If there was a discrepancy in the data from the 1930's, or instance, in the dataset downloaded in 1990, and the one downloaded today, you would have evidence of data tampering. We don't have that ..

In other words, there is no evidence of "Trump's scientists" altering the historical weather data at USHCN. It is way too easy to detect.

Hi jafadmin.

I don't agree with what you say about data being science, and it's not about what
I believe or not.

Data are numbers related to a situation, in this case weather. The weather data itself
for a certain location on a certain day at a certain hour is just that. It's when one
gathers a set together that trends start to appear and science begins (IMO).

And this is where I still have questions:

I wasn't being facetious asking if the data set included data for Alaska and Hawaii.
First the region factor: One is partly in the Arctic Circle and the other State is in the
middle of the Pacific.

Second the historical factor: 124 years ago was their data included in the set?
Or was the data only included when they became States of your country?
On different years, IIRC.

Include the data for this place and exclude the data for that place, and the trend will
show different values.

With the little I know about science, I believe this is valid for any set of data, "US" or
"what have you" data having nothing to do with it. This is simply methodology.

Of course this also begs the question of data collection: how was it done?
The same on the first day of the period as it was done yesterday?

Also a discrepancy in the graphs you presented here:
Data for the period for the whole of the US shows a decrease while the data for the
state of Maine shows an increase? That's weird, I'd say. Possible, but is there an
explanation ?

For all the above reasons, I remain skeptical about your graphs.

mavrothal · #97 Post by **mavrothal** » Tue 19 Nov 2019, 06:13

backi wrote:
the question is would it be any time left?
Hey Man... Situation really that bad ???? ..... is there any Chance left to finish my Cup of my Coffee .

It depends on the number of kids and/or grand kids you may have and care about.
If zero, plenty of time to plant a coffee tree and wait to get its beens for your coffee.
If one ore more, I would put the coffee in the refrigerator and have it when it cools off (pun intended)

mavrothal · #98 Post by **mavrothal** » Tue 19 Nov 2019, 14:08

jafadmin wrote:Here is the bottom line: Science relies on publicly available Data and methodology for peer review.

May be a good idea to read the description, though.
In the data providing NOAA site at the "Description" tab you can read the "Use Limitations" which says:

The dataset cannot be used to quantify all aspects of climate variability and change without any additional processing. In general, the stations providing daily observations were not managed to meet the desired standards for climate monitoring. Rather, the stations were deployed to meet the demands of agriculture, hydrology, weather forecasting, aviation, etc. GHCN-Daily data have not been homogenized to account for the potential artifacts associated with the various reporting practices at stations. Users must consider whether the potential for changes in systematic bias might be important for their particular application.

nic007 · #99 Post by **nic007** » Tue 19 Nov 2019, 14:48

that trend shows increased average warming of 1/3 of a degree Fahrenheit over the last 124 years (1/5 of a degree celsius

Miniscule. Could easily be explained due to possible human error (eg: possible errors recording/collecting and analyzing the data) and the cycle of 124 years is hopelessly too short to make any meaningful deductions from anyway.

Burn_IT · #100 Post by **Burn_IT** » Tue 19 Nov 2019, 16:59

Nic007:
human error would have averaged out across the number of stations and readings.

(old)Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

(old)Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

July was the hottest month ever on Earth