CLAIM: NOAA Data Shows No Warming For 58 Years!

[MickeyW]

In their “hottest year ever” press briefing, NOAA included this graph, which stated that they have a 58 year long radiosonde temperature record. But they only showed the last 37 years in the graph.

The omission of this data from the NOAA report, is just their latest attempt to defraud the public. NOAA’s best data shows no warming for 60 years. But it gets worse. The graph in the NOAA report shows about 0.5C warming from 1979 to 2010, but their original published data shows little warming during that period.

NOAA Radiosonde Data Shows No Warming For 58 Years | Real Science



GW....the biggest fraud perpetrated on the world since FDR pulled the big one.

 

[EnigmaO01]

So what's the impetus for an entire agency perpetrating a fraud on the public?

This should be good.

 

[Hari Seldon]

So what's the impetus for an entire agency perpetrating a fraud on the public?

This should be good.

Supposed to be 74+ here on Wed. New record.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Supposed to be 74+ here on Wed. New record.

Well, I've seen days here where it was claimed to be record heat, but years ago was hotter. That is until they corrected the past records, and made them cooler.

 

[Deuce]

In their “hottest year ever” press briefing, NOAA included this graph, which stated that they have a 58 year long radiosonde temperature record. But they only showed the last 37 years in the graph.

The omission of this data from the NOAA report, is just their latest attempt to defraud the public. NOAA’s best data shows no warming for 60 years. But it gets worse. The graph in the NOAA report shows about 0.5C warming from 1979 to 2010, but their original published data shows little warming during that period.

NOAA Radiosonde Data Shows No Warming For 58 Years | Real Science



GW....the biggest fraud perpetrated on the world since FDR pulled the big one.

Those aren't surface temperature datasets.

 

[longview]

Those aren't surface temperature datasets.

No but they represent the portion of the atmosphere that is supposed to be warming
according to the IPCC.
https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/258.htm

(D) When a perturbation is applied (such as increases in well-mixed greenhouse gases),
there is an instantaneous change in irradiances that is manifest in general as a radiative imbalance (forcing)
at the surface, tropopause and the top of the atmosphere.
The rapid thermal re-equilibration of the stratosphere leads to an alteration of the radiative imbalance
imposed on the surface-troposphere system (WMO, 1992), thereby yielding an adjusted forcing (SAR).

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/tar-01.pdf

If the amount of carbon dioxide were doubled instantaneously,
with everything else remaining the same, the outgoing infrared
radiation would be reduced by about 4 Wm−2. In other words, the
radiative forcing corresponding to a doubling of the CO2 concentration
would be 4 Wm−2. To counteract this imbalance, the temperature
of the surface-troposphere system would have to increase by 1.2°C.

The IPCC is pretty clear the predicted warming is in the surface-troposphere system,
and not the surface only.

 

[Lord of Planar]

You should give up. He will never admit that the IPCCC is wrong on anything.

 

[Visbek]

In their “hottest year ever” press briefing, NOAA included this graph, which stated that they have a 58 year long radiosonde temperature record. But they only showed the last 37 years in the graph.

OMG NOOOOO!!!

You do know that all the data is publicly available, right? And that they showed 37 years of Radiosonde data because two other graphs on that page were for 37 years?

The omission of this data from the NOAA report, is just their latest attempt to defraud the public. NOAA’s best data shows no warming for 60 years.

....unless you're actually, y'know, looking at the data.



As already noted, troposphere is not the entirety of global warming -- and does show significant warming since ~1997.

And of course, if they had shown 37 year graphs for 2 of the data series, and 58 years in the 3rd graph, the same people would scream about deceptive time scales on the graph.

 

[VanceMack]

So what's the impetus for an entire agency perpetrating a fraud on the public?

This should be good.

Why would they lie to sheep? Seems simple enough...funding. Since they dont exist without funding, they are willing participants in all of this. Hell...I believe many of them are committed 'true believers' themselves. Thats why they lie, 'game' datasets, and manufacture results when the actual results dont show what they are 'supposed' to show. For that matter...forget about those spewing the lies...why do 'true believers' desperately cling to the lie in the first place? Why are they so willing to void themselves of critical thinking skills (while voiding themselves of everything else as well) and spew and regurgitate whatever it is they have been spoon fed as if it were gospel?

 

[MickeyW]

So what's the impetus for an entire agency perpetrating a fraud on the public?

This should be good.

Misinformation ........given to a large segment of the population that would believe the hogwash.
The government is not your friend, never has been. Fast and Furious comes to mind, Ruby Ridge, Waco, storing of nuclear waste, government take over of vast areas of the western US.
If you believe anything the Feds do is good for you, I can't help you...no one can.

Supposed to be 74+ here on Wed. New record.

So?

Well, I've seen days here where it was claimed to be record heat, but years ago was hotter. That is until they corrected the past records, and made them cooler.

I LMAO every time the news guys say, we will hit (pick a number) degrees today, that broke a record from 1939, or some such drivel!:lamo

No but they represent the portion of the atmosphere that is supposed to be warming
according to the IPCC.
https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/258.htm


http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/tar-01.pdf


The IPCC is pretty clear the predicted warming is in the surface-troposphere system,
and not the surface only.

Yep.

 

[MickeyW]

OMG NOOOOO!!!

You do know that all the data is publicly available, right? And that they showed 37 years of Radiosonde data because two other graphs on that page were for 37 years?

..unless you're actually, y'know, looking at the data.

As already noted, troposphere is not the entirety of global warming -- and does show significant warming since ~1997.

And of course, if they had shown 37 year graphs for 2 of the data series, and 58 years in the 3rd graph, the same people would scream about deceptive time scales on the graph.

I lived through a lot of it Vis....and you don't know jack....

Why would they lie to sheep? Seems simple enough...funding. Since they dont exist without funding, they are willing participants in all of this. Hell...I believe many of them are committed 'true believers' themselves. Thats why they lie, 'game' datasets, and manufacture results when the actual results dont show what they are 'supposed' to show. For that matter...forget about those spewing the lies...why do 'true believers' desperately cling to the lie in the first place? Why are they so willing to void themselves of critical thinking skills (while voiding themselves of everything else as well) and spew and regurgitate whatever it is they have been spoon fed as if it were gospel?

Some people, mostly progressives and old libs....are sheep, like being sheep and will always be sheep!

They will believe all the malarky about gun control, global baloney and that illegal doesn't really mean criminal! Ya just can't fix stupid...........or Lefties!

 

[Deuce]

No but they represent the portion of the atmosphere that is supposed to be warming
according to the IPCC.
https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/258.htm


http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/tar-01.pdf


The IPCC is pretty clear the predicted warming is in the surface-troposphere system,
and not the surface only.

What did they predict specifically for the low-mid troposphere? Or is apples to apples something you want to avoid?

You should give up. He will never admit that the IPCCC is wrong on anything.

Another stunning ad hominem from Lord of Planar.

 

[longview]

What did they predict specifically for the low-mid troposphere?

In the report I quoted, they did not refine the surface-troposphere system beyond that.
https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/258.htm
They did say,

(B) In the one-dimensional radiative-convective model framework, the surface and troposphere are closely coupled, behaving as a single thermodynamic system under the joint control of radiative and convective processes, with a specified lapse rate determining the thermal structure.

Also the IPCC does not make specific predictions, but rather a range for the ECS.
The direct response warming for the surface-troposphere system is stated as being,
"1.2°C (with an accuracy of ±10%)" for a doubling of the CO2 level.

 

[akrunner88]

In their “hottest year ever” press briefing, NOAA included this graph, which stated that they have a 58 year long radiosonde temperature record. But they only showed the last 37 years in the graph.

The omission of this data from the NOAA report, is just their latest attempt to defraud the public. NOAA’s best data shows no warming for 60 years. But it gets worse. The graph in the NOAA report shows about 0.5C warming from 1979 to 2010, but their original published data shows little warming during that period.

NOAA Radiosonde Data Shows No Warming For 58 Years | Real Science



GW....the biggest fraud perpetrated on the world since FDR pulled the big one.

Dude I admittingly don't have much foot in the game on this topic as far as how much I care, what my opinion is, etc. But please try not to use bull**** sources, it really discredits your arguments when you post **** like this.

 

[Deuce]

No but they represent the portion of the atmosphere that is supposed to be warming
according to the IPCC.
https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/258.htm


http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/tar-01.pdf


The IPCC is pretty clear the predicted warming is in the surface-troposphere system,
and not the surface only.

In the report I quoted, they did not refine the surface-troposphere system beyond that.
https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/258.htm
They did say,

Also the IPCC does not make specific predictions, but rather a range for the ECS.
The direct response warming for the surface-troposphere system is stated as being,
"1.2°C (with an accuracy of ±10%)" for a doubling of the CO2 level.

So what do you perceive as the issue, then?

 

[Visbek]

I lived through a lot of it Vis....and you don't know jack....

Lived through a lot of what, exactly?

Some people, mostly progressives and old libs....are sheep, like being sheep and will always be sheep!

Sorry, but ad hom attacks on your political rivals do not make facts go away. Nor does it change the fact that your only "disproof" of the latest findings is to pick on one chart where the authors picked a 37-year period, while the text refers to a longer period.

I would suggest you come back when you have a real argument, but....

 

[longview]

So what do you perceive as the issue, then?

You made the comment back in post #5

Those aren't surface temperature datasets.

My response was that the IPCC did not say the surface temperatures would
rise specifically, but rather the surface-troposphere system.
People think about the boundary layer between the troposphere and the stratosphere,
but there is also a boundary layer between the surface and the troposphere.
The surface temperatures are an attempt to make a measurement in a very
noisy environment.

 

[Deuce]

You made the comment back in post #5

My response was that the IPCC did not say the surface temperatures would
rise specifically, but rather the surface-troposphere system.
People think about the boundary layer between the troposphere and the stratosphere,
but there is also a boundary layer between the surface and the troposphere.
The surface temperatures are an attempt to make a measurement in a very
noisy environment.

OP was clearly confusing the two. Hope this clears things up for you.

 

[longview]

OP was clearly confusing the two. Hope this clears things up for you.

The IPCC predictions are still based on the surface-troposphere system, and not the
actual surface temperatures.

 

[Deuce]

The IPCC predictions are still based on the surface-troposphere system, and not the
actual surface temperatures.

Which predictions? All of them?

 

[jmotivator]

Supposed to be 74+ here on Wed. New record.

El Nino, weather is not climate and only an instrumental record within margin of error.

 

[jmotivator]

You made the comment back in post #5

My response was that the IPCC did not say the surface temperatures would
rise specifically, but rather the surface-troposphere system.
People think about the boundary layer between the troposphere and the stratosphere,
but there is also a boundary layer between the surface and the troposphere.
The surface temperatures are an attempt to make a measurement in a very
noisy environment.

Deuce is just here to tell you that the IPCC was wrong about their fundamental claim regarding the surface/troposphere coupling but we should continue believing their models derived from this, as Deuce sees it, fundamentally flawed assumption. :lol:

 

[MickeyW]

El Nino, weather is not climate and only an instrumental record within margin of error.

Correct!

 

[MickeyW]

Dude I admittingly don't have much foot in the game on this topic as far as how much I care, what my opinion is, etc. But please try not to use bull**** sources, it really discredits your arguments when you post **** like this.

What BS sources are you talking about?

Lived through a lot of what, exactly?



Sorry, but ad hom attacks on your political rivals do not make facts go away. Nor does it change the fact that your only "disproof" of the latest findings is to pick on one chart where the authors picked a 37-year period, while the text refers to a longer period.

I would suggest you come back when you have a real argument, but....

I've lived through a time when the govt. contradicts itself and although Climate Change happens, it's in nature, not by man.

There are plenty of scientists stating that GW is a farce.....biggest conjob out there besides Pearl Harbor and SS.....

 

[Hari Seldon]

Well, I've seen days here where it was claimed to be record heat, but years ago was hotter. That is until they corrected the past records, and made them cooler.

66 today. Definitely warmer than usual.