NASA tells us this May was second hottest on record

originally posted by: markovian
.05 ... i can literaly cause that change bye breathing on something

I think in almost anything .05 is called a margin of error ... id like to know if every thermomiter used was within +/-.001 ... that would be the minimum for tollerance to mesure something .05

Thats just it. This is NASA and they are not following the rules for scientific reporting, precision, accuracy, margins of errors, nothing is given, just headlines to push their agenda. I don't see how they can get away with this.

Remember the big hoopla about Trump coming to power and how he was going to purge all the data? That never happened, it's all there. What I would like to see purged is this relentless stream of propaganda from NASA and NOAA. Their reporting on these hit pieces is not scientific, no better than National Enquirer style journalism.

This should not be funded by taxpayers dollars.

I live in Phoenix, AZ. May was rather cool this year compared to previous years. But we're going to make up for that starting tomorrow with expected highs between 115° and 120° during the week. The highest temperature ever recorded here was 122° in June, 1990, so we'll be pushing close to the record.

a reply to: D8Tee

The "disclaimer" is in the methodology of the project, which is top of the related links list at the bottom of the article i.e exactly where you'd expect a reference to be on every pop-sci article, ever.

As is always the case with complex scientific issues, you've got to dig a little deeper to understand what you're being presented with. It's not "dirty tricks" at play, it's ignorance on the part of ATS users.

The page you posted is a pop-sci, New Scientist-esque explanation of their data analysis. It irritates me that, as is so often the case on ATS, the easily found details are ignored, and flawed assumptions are made and espoused as fact.

It's an educated estimate. Seriously, go read their methodology.

a reply to: eightfold

The page you posted is a pop-sci, New Scientist-esque explanation of their data analysis.

Like I've stated, NASA and NOAA should not be in the business of promoting an agenda, they are science agencies, why are they in the business of promoting an agenda? I don't care what you say, it's dirty tricks, do you know how many times I've been directed to these NASA and NOAA pages by some well meaning individual that thinks since it's a NASA or NOAA link it's Gods honest truth? It's deceitful and misleading on NOAA and NASA's part.

It's an educated estimate. Seriously, go read their methodology.

Please elaborate how this dataset is an educated estimate.
The IPCC makes use of the GISS dataset right?

originally posted by: D8Tee

This is NASA and they are not following the rules for scientific reporting, precision, accuracy, margins of errors, nothing is given, just headlines to push their agenda. I don't see how they can get away with this.

They're not. The scientists themselves explain their methodology clearly and concisely in pages linked from the article you posted. Seriously. You seem to be mistaking a one-sheet analysis & summary for a full scientific paper?

Every question you've asked in this thread is answered in the related links.

a reply to: eightfold

And there is no reason that NASA and NOAA should be in the business of releasing 'one sheet analysis and summaries'. They can stick to providing data. These 'one sheet analsysi and summaries' as you call them are alarmist propaganda sites, nothing more.

Oceans are cooling. Saw it on NOAA.

I don't care what you say, it's dirty tricks, do you know how many times I've been directed to these NASA and NOAA pages by some well meaning individual that thinks since it's a NASA or NOAA link it's Gods honest truth? It's deceitful and misleading on NOAA and NASA's part.

... which means they're making the same mistake as you. Like I said, you have to dig deeper to understand what you're being presented with.

It's a common problem in science reporting, and the obligatory XKCD comic is here...

xkcd.com...

Please elaborate how this dataset is an educated estimate.

The dataset isn't an educated estimate, the *analysis* of the dataset is an estimate. The analysis is formed by applying statistical methods they explain in various papers linked to from the project page, which is linked to from the article itself.

Given you "don't care what I say" I'm going to bow out of the thread. TBH, like a lot of people on ATS, you're also promoting an agenda, and one that's formed via lack of understanding.

The tools to understand what you're missing are all there, right in front of you (and linked from the article you posted). I highly recommmend you stop arguing here and go read 'em.

originally posted by: FlyingFox
Oceans are cooling. Saw it on NOAA.

Their May report will be out tomorrow or the next day, I'll make a thread showing the fine print. The bold headline will of course be some kind of alarmist scream, it always is. If you read past the headline and dig a bit deeper, it's easy to see how they practice to deceive. It's not just a case of them presenting a one page synopsis, it's a case of them presenting a biased, misleading one page synopsis knowing full well that 95 percent of people won't look any further. It's their agenda and they are sticking to it. You wait, if this planet goes into a detectable cooling trend, C02 will still get the blame, it's the only way they can play it.

And seriously, editing your posts like that .... 🙄

a reply to: eightfold

You're totally missing the point. NASA and NOAA should not be in the business of 'pop-sci, New Scientist-esque explanation of their data'. And missing another point, they do this with an agenda. Why do you automatically think that I am not knowledgeable of whats going on, and that I haven't dug deeper?

Sea levels rise is not accelerating, but if you go to the NOAA pop-sci, New Scientist-esque explanation of their data you'd certainly think the rise was accelerating, is that an honest approach by NOAA?

This NOAA page is purely propaganda and their own data disputes it. How many people will dig deeper? Is that what you support, your tax dollars going to trick people that don't have the time or inclination to dig deeper?
NOAA PROPAGANDA LINK

originally posted by: D8Tee

And there is no reason that NASA and NOAA should be in the business of releasing 'one sheet analysis and summaries'. They can stick to providing data. These 'one sheet analsysi and summaries' as you call them are alarmist propaganda sites, nothing more.

Are you seriously suggesting that scientists should just collect data then not do any analysis of it? Really?

The last time I checked, "analyse data and draw conclusions" was pretty core to the scientific method.

Stunning.

a reply to: eightfold

What, you are calling me out for adding this line to my post? So what? It was an afterthought.

The IPCC makes use of the GISS dataset right?

originally posted by: eightfold

originally posted by: D8Tee

And there is no reason that NASA and NOAA should be in the business of releasing 'one sheet analysis and summaries'. They can stick to providing data. These 'one sheet analsysi and summaries' as you call them are alarmist propaganda sites, nothing more.

Are you seriously suggesting that scientists should just collect data then not do any analysis of it? Really?

The last time I checked, "analyse data and draw conclusions" was pretty core to the scientific method.

Stunning.

Do you really see anything scientific about their "pop-sci, New Scientist-esque explanation of their data"?

There's no nothing, Most of the graphs they supply on those types of pages don't even have legends. There is nothing scientific about them, just propaganda hit pieces with an emphasis on alarmism.

originally posted by: D8Tee
Why do you automatically think that I am not knowledgeable of whats going on, and that I haven't dug deeper?

... because the answers to your questions in the OP and later posts are spelled out on the project site.

Sea levels rise is not accelerating, but if you go to the NOAA pop-sci, New Scientist-esque explanation of their data you'd certainly think the rise was accelerating, is that an honest approach by NOAA?

That totally depends on who you ask. Where's your published, peer reviewed methodology and analysis of their sea level data? I'll read it, happily.

You can't just make a broad statement like that and not back it up. If their analysis is wrong, in what way is it wrong?

Fact is, almost all the peer reviewed analysis I've seen suggests that the sea level *is* rising, and the idea that 1000's of scientists (some of whom I know personally, and are just normal guys that happen to work in data analysis) are involved in a grand conspiracy, is ridiculous.

Is that what you support, your tax dollars going to trick people that don't have the time or inclination to dig deeper?
NOAA PROPAGANDA LINK

I'm in the UK, but if I was in the US I'd have no problem with NASA and the NOAA paying scientists to try and figure stuff out.

Whether or not they get it right or not, I work on the basis that the scientific method will (as it has for quite a while now), result in us expanding our knowledge and understanding of WTF is going on in a whole load of fields.

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: eightfold

What, you are calling me out for adding this line to my post? So what? It was an afterthought.

The IPCC makes use of the GISS dataset right?

Nope, I'm calling you out on removing (something along the lines of) "show me any dataset that isn't an estimate" from the end. I was going to post a witty list, and you spoiled my fun. 😉

Seriously, you seem to be misunderstanding the difference between a dataset and a statistical analysis.

Sooooo what is everyone's point here...hehe

a reply to: eightfold

That totally depends on who you ask. Where's your published, peer reviewed methodology and analysis of their sea level data? I'll read it, happily.

Sea-Level Acceleration Based on U.S. Tide Gauges and Extensions of Previous Global-Gauge Analyses
Journal of Coastal Research 27(3):409-417 · May 2011 Dean and Houston
Link

The important conclusion of our study is not that the data sets we analyze display small sea-level decelerations, but that accelerations, whether negative or positive (we reference studies that found small positive accelerations), are quite small. To reach the multimeter levels projected for 2100 by RV requires large positive accelerations that are one to two orders of magnitude greater than those yet observed in sea-level data

a reply to: D8Tee
The most important thing that everyone should know about climate change and sea-level is that there's been no detectable sustained acceleration (increase) in the rate of sea-level rise in over 85 years. All around the world, the best sea-level measurements all show the same thing: an almost perfectly linear trend. Sea-level is rising no faster now, with CO2 at 0.040% of the atmosphere, than it was when CO2 was less than 0.031% 

Which is confirmed by the Dean and Houston paper that I have linked in the previous post. NOAA can take their pop-sci, New Scientist-esque explanation of their data analysis, and shove it where the sun don't shine for all the good it does. It's nothing more than propaganda. It's clickbait, deceitful, dishonest, misleading clickbait. Go to the University of Colorado's website if you need further confirmation that there has been no detectable acceleration in the rate of sea level rise. Even with the manipulated GMSL data acquired from satellite altimetry they cannot make this claim. WTF is NOAA doing saying that it is accelerating on their clickbait site?

originally posted by: eightfold

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: eightfold

What, you are calling me out for adding this line to my post? So what? It was an afterthought.

The IPCC makes use of the GISS dataset right?

Nope, I'm calling you out on removing (something along the lines of) "show me any dataset that isn't an estimate" from the end. I was going to post a witty list, and you spoiled my fun. 😉

Seriously, you seem to be misunderstanding the difference between a dataset and a statistical analysis.

I understand the difference between a dataset and a semi empirical model based upon data, yes.
Here, if you want to play around with graphing the data, go to woodfortrees.org. Has most all the datasets.

Link