The United States is currently undergoing its longest period of time without a Major Hurricane Strike.

Citizen Runner wrote:

SomeCoach wrote:

It's difficult to know which year has been the warmest because of this scandal, which is only going to get worse ...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/10916086/The-scandal-of-fiddled-global-warming-data.html

.... but even if you don't buy into this incredibly unethical piece of science, this spring did not even come close to the spring of 1998.

As discussed in the links provided up thread, the gist of "this incredibly unethical piece of science" was an algorithm rejecting data from one particular sensor in the network because it was inconsistent with other sensors in the region. The sensor, upon further investigation the sensor was in fact discovered to be malfunctioning.

Of course that could just be a cover story for the massive global conspiracy.

And it would seem that the algorithm has changed in order to fit an agenda, and once again "data" may not actually be data. The warmest month in US history has flip-flopped three times this year. That is a huge issue ...

And let's not even start to talk about how many of these heat sensors don't meet Class 1 requirements .... the UHI impact is huge in many of these cases.

Tell that to Hawaii

NOAA global data can be shown with this tool:

(global tab, Timescale: 3-months, Month: June) gives a bar-graph of April-June annual temperature anomaly per the NCDC dataset. Ranking is 2014 warmest, 2010, and a tie between 2005 and 2010.

The UAH (and the RSS) satellite dataset does have a significantly greater peak in El Nino years and will give a different ranking in this sort of comparison. The physical explanation is that they are not strictly surface temperature measurements, they are a weighted average of atmospheric temperature anomaly up to nominally 5-6 km altitude and the tropospheric response to El Nino is larger than the surface temperature response.

In the interest of mitigating personal biases, it's important not to be easily dismissive of data that one finds inconvenient.

Of course algorithms change. We're not using rotary dial phones anymore either and Java wants to update seemingly every week or two with something I understand to be more robust. Our fundamental difference is that I believe the "agenda" is to converge on the best interpretation of the available and inherently imperfect data and you apparently believe otherwise.

The metrics change because the underlying data (especially for global metrics) does not all arrive in a timely manner and may contain errors that can not be immediately sorted out. The organizations that compile this data therefore produce a timely product and update it as necessary. This makes sense from a scientific perspective because the changes in the updates typically aren't that significant. From a propaganda perspective both sides seem to make a great deal of rankings, differences between data sets, and such, but scientifically the refined individual monthly measurements aren't generally significantly different from the initial product.

Let's not.

"Let's not" because it is well know the impact is has on surface data, which is why the satellite data is more accurate in assessing current temperature trends?

SomeCoach wrote:

"Let's not" because it is well know the impact is has on surface data, which is why the satellite data is more accurate in assessing current temperature trends?

1) Urban heat island and other siting effects are a confounding factor recognized by those who generate the temperature record. They make an effort to account for this and I believe the evidence is that they do so in good faith. This is discussed numerous places in the literature, e.g.

2) As I noted above, the satellite data isn't measuring precisely the same thing as surface sensors and it has a greater response to certain climatic phenomena such as El Nino. This makes it easier to cherry-pick segments of data that are inconsistent with the long term trend. It's also the case that the satellite data's estimated confidence interval is larger than the satellite data, so to claim it is "more accurate" is arguable at best.

3) With all that said, there isn't much difference in the long term trend between satellite and surface measurements. This supports the notion that the residual impact of surface station siting/urban heating effect is not a significant issue.

The first hurricane in 22 years almost struck Hawaii today.

Randy Oldman wrote:

The first hurricane in 22 years almost struck Hawaii today.

Not much action here on O'ahu, some wind and rain in waves, and a few trees down, but nothing worse than a heavy winter storm. My parents live on the east side of the Big Island, not far from where Iselle made landfall, and there was extensive flooding, some trees down, and some power outages. Nothing compared to what Kaua'i experienced during Iniki in '94.. Let's see how Julio treats us when he comes through in a day or two..

Citizen Runner wrote:

3) With all that said, there isn't much difference in the long term trend between satellite and surface measurements. This supports the notion that the residual impact of surface station siting/urban heating effect is not a significant issue.

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth ... you use a surface data graph which shows a positive temperature trend to counter my satellite data which clearly shows a nearly 18 year pause (a -0.1 degC/decade trend, cooling yes but not statistically so) and now you claim no difference between the two to explain away UHI? You are being disingenuous!

It's not record highs that are impacted, but rather overnight lows ... and it's driving the average temperature value up and up.

Almost every major media outlet will tell you hurricanes are increasing ... here are some facts to help everyone out.

http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/image23.png

A lot of the reason we THINK that weather is more severe is that we have ...

1. A lot more coverage of these events ....

2. More people in harms way .....

Tornadoes only seem to be on the increase; the only REAL thin on the increase are the number of people who are living in these regions.

No Way wrote:

Just like everyone who might say, "If you run 100 mpw you'll be fast."

Just because the effect doesn't turn out the way you think doesn't mean the cause isn't there.

This is basic logic.

Very good parallel. Global warming truthers are like those who say the key to maximum speed is 100 mpw. They remind everyone how intelligent they are and lay out their prediction: take bolt, Powell and gay, get them up to 100 mpw and they will be the fastest in the world. The more intelligent 5 year olds roll their eyes in disbelief but sit back patiently to see if the predictions might have any glimmer of truth. Pay year later and well they aren't any faster and are in fact slower, yet the truthers cling even harder to their failed beliefs. "Bring us lemaitre and Bkake", they yell. But of course year after year they take the fastest and make them slower. The 5 year old realizes his superiority and wonders how an ego could so blindly suppress one's basic logic, rendering one incapable of processing facts. Doomed to dream in the world of hypothesis and hope.

Not at all. I'm saying if you overlay the satellite data and the surface data they match pretty well. The difference, as noted in (2) of the previous post, is that the satellite data tends to have higher amplitude peaks and valleys relative to the surface measurements.

Here's the picture:

I also noted above that these higher peaks and valleys, "make it easier to cherry-pick segments of data that are inconsistent with the long term trend." Thanks for getting on that right away.

Apparently we cultists are incapable of doing otherwise.

I'm not clear on what point you're making here. I've acknowledged that the urban heat island effect is real, but I've not seen a good argument that it has meaningfully corrupted the surface temperature record and there is published literature that suggests it probably hasn't. One such line of evidence is the general agreement in trend between the surface and satellite record. For others, see the Hausfather paper linked above and its references.

But it doesn't change the fact that they're running 100mpw (aka, the Earth is warming).

regarding the OPs apparent belief in a hurricane/global warming correlation.... don't believe what you see in a Nicolas Cage movie