Warmest September on RecordEnvironmental | 207675 hits | Oct 14 4:02 pm | Posted by: Zipperfish  Climate Change, September 2014 was the warmest September on record globally for land/ocean combined, according to NASA.Commentsview comments in forum Page 1 2 You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news. |
Share
Who voted on this?
|
Mobile
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
Also Hadley SST in the UK reports the warmest September on record, with second biggest anomaly ever recorded, the highest anomaly having been last month. Their dataset goes back to baout 1850.
It'd be nice to see the raw weather station data if they'd ever release it.
Easy to do. Go to environment Canada web sight a look up the historical data. Day by day or month by month.
Hasn't been warm here this summer at all though.
It'd be nice to see the raw weather station data if they'd ever release it.
Easy to do. Go to environment Canada web sight a look up the historical data. Day by day or month by month.
Hasn't been warm here this summer at all though.
No, cold comfort to the east, pun intended!
Easy to do. Go to environment Canada web sight a look up the historical data. Day by day or month by month.
That's the problem, it's reported data, not raw data from stations.
The correction of weather data to 'properly' reflect the weather conditions has become a real problem with the data being put forward by national agencies.
We know that the practice is common in the USA, Australia, and some EU nations.
Would Environment Canada be willing to accept jail terms for all it's associated staff if it was found to have been correcting data, changing data, using well established methods of data processing, in anyway changing what was recorded to what was reported? (and further using data from other sources that had been changed in a similar method? Like the GISS data?)
I'm not an anti government nut, but I have little confidence that they will report actual numbers, raw data without correction or edit or some other form of manipulation, given the actions of many other formerly respectable national environment and weather agencies.
I will accept that it was warm last month, outside of when it was snowing. But I'm not willing to accept their numbers in a scientifically accurate context, without some proof that they are giving raw numbers.
Easy to do. Go to environment Canada web sight a look up the historical data. Day by day or month by month.
That's the problem, it's reported data, not raw data from stations.
Obviously you've never taken the time to look. It's all hourly data from each station. There is no line at the bottom of the page that said: "That was one hot mother fucking month."
You actually have to look at it and decide for yourself.
It'd be nice to see the raw weather station data if they'd ever release it.
Easy to do. Go to environment Canada web sight a look up the historical data. Day by day or month by month.
Hasn't been warm here this summer at all though.
No, cold comfort to the east, pun intended!
This post provides an update of the data for the three primary suppliers of global land+ocean surface temperature data—GISS through September 2014 and HADCRUT4 and NCDC through August 2014—and of the two suppliers of satellite-based lower troposphere temperature data (RSS and UAH) through September 2014.
The three surface data suppliers have been claiming record high monthly values recently. This is, in part, due to the record high sea surface temperatures in the North Pacific, which impact the global data because of the size of the North Pacific and the intensity of the weather-related warming there. For further information about the unusual warming of the North Pacific, see the post On The Recent Record-High Global Sea Surface Temperatures – The Wheres and Whys. I will discuss that North Pacific hotspot (a.k.a. the blob) again in an upcoming post.
The other factors that contributed to the recent record highs are the updates to the GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI) and UKMO HADCRUT4 data. There has not been a noticeable shift in the NCDC global land+ocean data, as there has been with the GISS and UKMO data, so one would suspect that the changes were not caused by updates to NOAA’s GHCN data. We briefly discussed the changes to the GISS data in the post GISS Tweaks the Short-Term Global Temperature Trend Upwards. The impacts of the adjustments to the HADCRUT4 data were discussed in the recent post at WattsUpWithThat by Werner Brozek, Walter Dnes, and blogger “Just The Facts”.
Whether the data suppliers are aware of this, the adjustments to the data, which always increase the warming rate, appear odd to outsiders. The data suppliers seem to be forcing the warming to appear when there has not been any surface warming.
Additionally, not too surprisingly, when data suppliers have been proclaiming the monthly record highs, they have failed to acknowledge the reasons for them: (1) a naturally occurring and persistent blocking high that caused an unusual warming of the North Pacific and (2) adjustments to the data. When the public must investigate and then discover the reasons for the record highs, the data suppliers lose credibility—they create skeptics. The problem, very few people investigate. Most of the public simply take it for granted that the record highs have something to do with manmade global warming caused by the emissions of greenhouse gases.
More here
This post provides an update of the data for the three primary suppliers of global land+ocean surface temperature data—GISS through September 2014 and HADCRUT4 and NCDC through August 2014—and of the two suppliers of satellite-based lower troposphere temperature data (RSS and UAH) through September 2014.
The three surface data suppliers have been claiming record high monthly values recently. This is, in part, due to the record high sea surface temperatures in the North Pacific, which impact the global data because of the size of the North Pacific and the intensity of the weather-related warming there. For further information about the unusual warming of the North Pacific, see the post On The Recent Record-High Global Sea Surface Temperatures – The Wheres and Whys. I will discuss that North Pacific hotspot (a.k.a. the blob) again in an upcoming post.
The other factors that contributed to the recent record highs are the updates to the GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI) and UKMO HADCRUT4 data. There has not been a noticeable shift in the NCDC global land+ocean data, as there has been with the GISS and UKMO data, so one would suspect that the changes were not caused by updates to NOAA’s GHCN data. We briefly discussed the changes to the GISS data in the post GISS Tweaks the Short-Term Global Temperature Trend Upwards. The impacts of the adjustments to the HADCRUT4 data were discussed in the recent post at WattsUpWithThat by Werner Brozek, Walter Dnes, and blogger “Just The Facts”.
Whether the data suppliers are aware of this, the adjustments to the data, which always increase the warming rate, appear odd to outsiders. The data suppliers seem to be forcing the warming to appear when there has not been any surface warming.
Additionally, not too surprisingly, when data suppliers have been proclaiming the monthly record highs, they have failed to acknowledge the reasons for them: (1) a naturally occurring and persistent blocking high that caused an unusual warming of the North Pacific and (2) adjustments to the data. When the public must investigate and then discover the reasons for the record highs, the data suppliers lose credibility—they create skeptics. The problem, very few people investigate. Most of the public simply take it for granted that the record highs have something to do with manmade global warming caused by the emissions of greenhouse gases.
More here
The UAH RSS sateite data was adjusted to be cooler in 2012. One of the satellites was removed from the data set because it showed "spurious warming." SO much for the myth of the data always being adjusted upward.
The UAH RSS sateite data was adjusted to be cooler in 2012. One of the satellites was removed from the data set because it showed "spurious warming." SO much for the myth of the data always being adjusted upward.
This is the problem. These groups keep 'adjusting' their data and then releasing the adjusted data instead of releasing the raw data along with their methodology for adjusting it so other people can test it to see if they get the same result.
Yet the raw data is kept top secret.
If I can't reproduce their results then their results are suspect. Period.
This is the problem. These groups keep 'adjusting' their data and then releasing the adjusted data instead of releasing the raw data along with their methodology for adjusting it so other people can test it to see if they get the same result.
Yet the raw data is kept top secret.
If I can't reproduce their results then their results are suspect. Period.
If by these groups, you mean the people that collect the UAH data--well that would be Roy Spencer, climate change skeptic.
Note also: no raw data from him either.
So you have two main satellite data sets collected by two different groups. The UAH group noted that their temperature record was getting warmer compared to the RSS. That warming got to the point where it was suspected tyhere was something wrong. They determined that one satellite was showing spurious warming, so they eliminated that data point.
Also, if there were data fixing going on, don't you think they would have engineered their way out of the global warming pause?
Also, if there were data fixing going on, don't you think they would have engineered their way out of the global warming pause?
Oh, no, they're hard at work on that problem.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/06/n ... r-records/
Also, if there were data fixing going on, don't you think they would have engineered their way out of the global warming pause?
Oh, no, they're hard at work on that problem.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/06/n ... r-records/
Arguing with deniers. They just move from one silly argument to the next. I've provided solid evidence that skeptics are not providing raw datat either, solid evidence that data have been adjusted upward. Instead of saying "Oh yeah, I guess so" it's just on to the next canard.
From your linked article:
I just gave you a specific, sourced example of where data had been adjusted that would result in cooler current temperartures. Your response is to come back with an article claiming that data are always adjusted to suit the needs of climate change proponents after I provided a specific counterexample?
Fail.