quote:

Originally posted by theback40:

I'm 100% with J there is man made warming. [/b]It is not all from fossil fuels though. For some reason the host of other things we should be doing is overlooked. I suspect the green energy money is pushing that agenda.[b]

I am 100% in agreement with this.

And before anyone labels me a denier, let me say that I am not blaming volcanos, wildfires, cow gas, or the shifting of the magnetic poles for climate change.

I’ll start a new thread instead of muddling this one with my latest conspiracy theory…

Kabob, you proved you never really read or comprehended the article I posted.
The writer is a British freelance writer, not a rightist.
The U of Maine used data from NCEP for their re- analyzer model. The NCEP is part of The National Weather Service, the national weather service is part of NOAA.
The article came out on fri, do you think a gov agency,NOAA, will get back to news outlets with answers on a fri afternoon?
You get so determined to push back with your version, you dont even see what you are saying. NOAA said their own data can not be used the way the U of Maine did, and be certain it's accurate.
To you, it's a rightist article thats false.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
You said:

quote:

NOAA said they dont agree because it was made by modeling, not actual data.

The non-rightist/denier article said:

quote:

It legitimately captures global-scale heating and NOAA will take these figures into consideration when it does its official record calculations, said Deke Arndt, director of the National Center for Environmental Information, a division of NOAA.

Define modeling?

It must include legit temp collections (satellite data collection is legit) and sort the stats to come up with a global average. These guys don't make the calculations the old fashioned way, spreadsheet, etc. They use a computer program, which may have modeling aspects too.

They don't make this shit up. That's the point.

The article you read isn't legit in several ways.

Here's an article that explains it well, and it ain't hysterical:

https://time.com/6292103/world...-preliminary-record/

The World May Have Just Experienced the Hottest Day Ever Recorded

To summarize the debate you and theback40 are having:

One group of scientists are pushing the claim that we have seen 3 consecutive days of record heat. This group admits that they are pushing this because they want to capture the public’s attention, and give global warming its due.

From your AP article:

quote:

“Records grab attention, but we need to make sure to connect them with the things that actually matter,” climate scientist Friederike Otto of the Imperial College of London said in an email. “So I don’t think it’s crucial how ‘official’ the numbers are, what matters is that they are huge and dangerous and wouldn’t have happened without climate change.”

Also from your AP article:

quote:

Discussions about how official the records are aren’t as important as the public getting the message “that Earth is warming and humans are responsible,” said Max Boykoff, a University of Colorado environmental studies professor who tracks media coverage of climate change.

“The issue of climate change doesn’t often get its 15 minutes of fame. When it does, it’s usually tied to something abstract like a scientific report or a meeting of politicians that most people can’t relate to,” said George Mason University climate communications professor Ed Maibach.

Another group of scientists from the NOAA, a trusted and almost never questioned source of scientific data and information, has pointed out that they do not support the claim due to the use of modeling/projections in the data collection.

Again, from your AP article:

quote:

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on Thursday issued a note of caution about the Maine tool’s findings, saying it could not confirm data that results in part from computer modeling, saying it wasn’t a good substitute for observations.

You seem to be wasting a lot of words to try to convince yourself that agreeing with the group that supports your world view, and also admits that their goal is to support that world view WHETHER OR NOT THEIR DATA IS CORRECT, doesn’t show your bias.

I’ve never heard anyone who professes to believe science cast doubt on the NOAA, and yet here we are with you so “confused” about the difference between modeling and observations. Is that confusion or confirmation bias???

Can you imagine the field day that you would have if one of the deniers was playing the same hand that you are, doubting the NOAA because they disagree with their position? Confused as to why modeling isn’t a good substitute for observations? Questioning whether the NOAA scientists understand the science as well as the other scientists who are promoting their world view?

Would you call them an extremist or an ideologue?

And so it goes…

I don't "question" NOAA scientists.

I'm not qualified.

Are you?

It seems to me that you and others are saying that you are - actually more qualified.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

NOAA said they dont agree because it was made by modeling, not actual data.

The non-rightist/denier article said:

quote:

It legitimately captures global-scale heating and NOAA will take these figures into consideration when it does its official record calculations, said Deke Arndt, director of the National Center for Environmental Information, a division of NOAA.

Define modeling?

It must include legit temp collections (satellite data collection is legit) and sort the stats to come up with a global average. These guys don't make the calculations the old fashioned way, spreadsheet, etc. They use a computer program, which may have modeling aspects too.

They don't make this shit up. That's the point.

The article you read isn't legit in several ways.

This is what led me to believe that you were questioning the NOAA. You appear to be saying that the NOAA doesn’t know as much about the data as the scientists who are making the “record temperature” claims. And as theback40 pointed out, the data that those scientists used/misused is NOAA data.

I have no idea where you got the impression that I think that I am qualified to question the NOAA. I am completely unqualified to question any scientist.

Where did you get that absurd idea?

ncep has numerous models that can be used as guidance. You can go to their website and see them. They use data from NWS checkpoints. The same checkpoints, some of which they admit, are no longer accurate. The temp checkpoints are suppose to be so many feet from buildings and reflective surfaces. Many situated near cities and airports that have been built right to the posts themselves where the temp is recorded. This was all covered a couple years ago in a thread, even pictures showing the placement.
NWS said they know they are wrong, but still use the data as they had no new sites to place them. Suppose the U of Maine used data points from those areas, combined with the modeling type that best shows up warming. The models are only suppose to generate initial conditions, not actual data. That is why NOAA, who has the same data, said the work can not be taken as exact.
Kabob you get so excited about trying to be right and everyone else wrong, you dont really read and understand the information first. Slow down a little, get the hair out of your ass, and a debate can be had. Thats what you claim to want, but you only show you have to be right no matter what. That includes info you try to go against, you post yourself.