It is clear than the ASR is far exceeding any warning from the change in longwave.
No we don't. there are too many variables with too large or error ranges to have any accuracy.
They have you brainwashed.
Yes.
So they claim.
That is utter bullshit.
Thanks for the link but I think the problem is that the climate reference network only has 20 years worth of data, and I need to read up more on their anomaly findings, like what base period they use.I post a graphic showing how climate scientists have been able to more than adequately adjust the climate network data to account for the impact of the UHIE and you and LOP go into full conspiracy theory mode.
Here’s a few your joint conspiracy theories and why they are bogus:
Conspiracy theory: The data is from a lying blogger. No. Here’s the root source of the data and a snapshot of the data shown directly from the source:
National Temperature Index | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)
Several different methodologies to estimate the temperature history of the contiguous United States, including NCEI's current operational version. Users can graph, compare and save the output from these different methods.www.ncei.noaa.gov
View attachment 67591342
Conspiracy Theory: The length of the data was cherry picked. No. All the data available was used. The pristine sites used to compare to the entire monitoring network were not fully in operation until 2005.
Conspiracy Theory: August was a cherry picked month. Bigger differences would show up if January or February was used. No. August was picked because the UHIE effect has the most impact in that month. February, the coldest month, has even closer agreement than August as shown here:
View attachment 67591344
Conspiracy theory: Choosing the single month of August is cherry picking. Annual numbers covering the entire year should have been used. No. The annual numbers show better agreement than August as shown here:
View attachment 67591349
I’m not sure why you call them studies. They are just two data series generated by NOAA, but I guess it doesn’t matter what you call them.
Gee, I thought you would have at least looked at the graphic that you and Longview have been busy generating conspiracy theories about. As I said above the NOAA website is the source of the data in the graphic.
20 years of data is way more than enough data to show that the reference network and the adjusted network are in lockstep.
Apparently you didn’t grasp what I was saying in post 398. Hopefully, post 403 will clarify it for you.
Not really, anomalies are based on reference periods, and the length of the reference period could alter the relationship.
Both sets use the same reference period and data, (1991- 2020), which means they are almost looking at the same data for the first 20 years of the graph, and only years 2021-2025 would show much of anything. I will see what I can find when I get back on my computer.
Magazine article? As I said earlier, the original source is NOAA.
No it had the person’s name at the bottom the graph Kate Peterson, and the graphic was originally from her article in Fortune I Think.Magazine article? As I said earlier, the original source is NOAA.
National Temperature Index | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)
Several different methodologies to estimate the temperature history of the contiguous United States, including NCEI's current operational version. Users can graph, compare and save the output from these different methods.
Anything else would produce gibberish results when comparing the anomalies. Obviously if different reference periods were used the anomalies would not be comparable.
Wrong. They do not use the same data. They are two completely different datasets from two different sources.
Not true at all. They are two completely separate datasets from two separate sources. Your statement makes no sense. The graph is showing anomalies from two different averages for two different series. The point is that the differences shown for each series is nearly identical. Plus if you had done even a cursory inspection of the graph you would see that the variation shown in the anomalies is far greater before 2021 than after, not less.
Why would noaa have a magazine writer create a graph for them?Magazine article? As I said earlier, the original source is NOAA.
National Temperature Index | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)
Several different methodologies to estimate the temperature history of the contiguous United States, including NCEI's current operational version. Users can graph, compare and save the output from these different methods.
The reference period is the same data!
I don’t see why you want to keep saying that the source of the graph was not NOAA. The original graphic I posted was published by Kate Peterson but the original source is clearly marked as NOAA as you can see below. Also I showed that the graph from NOAA website and Kate’s graph are identical in post 403.
That is not a problem whatsoever. First the point is that the measurements from each series are tracking each other almost perfectly and second as I said above, the anomalies actually show way more variation during the reference period than after.
Mistakes can be repeated. They are as easily replicated with bad methodology.
Your faith is string. Their science I have seen used is not sufficient to remove the UHIE.
Weird question. NOAA created the graph long before the article was written not the magazine writer. The magazine writer (holder of a MS from MIT) published it and properly sourced it.
Again are you saying that if someone in the popular media publishes a NOAA graph that it becomes illegitimate?
Your faith is strong. The science is way more than sufficient to remove the UHIE.
Nonsense. No mistakes. No bad methodology. Just your denial of any scientific evidence put before you.
Delusional.
Yes
Anyone with the skills to read a simple graph can see that you are wrong.
Yes, you are delusional.
Then show me the science instead and explain in your own words with papers and quotes from them why I am wrong. You rhetoric attached to a chart doesn't mean squat to me. Incorrect narratives are too often assigned to images.
