Hüsker Dü
DA
Well, "According to one side or the other . . ." but never mind what I wrote, just go on with your bad self, you bad whamma jamma!
Climate and Weather
- Thread starter espola
- Start date
Christy et al. at UAH impeached their own data (the rss and uah sets in your plot) after they admitted the errors that others had found. They published a paper beginning with this --
Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere
-
Understanding and Reconciling Differences
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Convening Lead Author:
Tom M. L. Wigley, NSF NCAR
Lead Authors:
V. Ramaswamy, NOAA; J.R. Christy, Univ. of AL
in Huntsville; J.R. Lanzante, NOAA; C.A. Mears, Remote Sensing
Systems; B.D. Santer, DOE LLNL; C.K. Folland, U.K. Met Office
PB
1
Abstract
Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human-induced global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies.
This has been pointed out to you in the past.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Hilarious.
Why are the two sets of data diverging?
Bruddah IZ
DA
What makes you think they are diverging?
It looks like they are diverging.
Interestingly enough, more so after 2006. (the date of the link you posted explaining satellite data corrections)
From 06 to present, there seems to be a marked divergence between satellite and surface temps.
The two forms of measurement parallel each other fairly closely, with satellite temps running slightly cooler, (yet consistently mirroring) except for the peak in '98.
For some reason, a glitch there shows both the satellite and surface temps reaching an unprecedented consensus.
Tell me more about what you seem to see, especially the "glitch".
You didn't use the trend line analysis available in the website.
Have figured out yet what you meant by "classical liberalism"?
It looks like the low points show more divergence than the high points on the graph.
The glitch is unusual.
No. Just a visual observation of mine for the purposes of discussion.
I posted the wikipedia definition because I knew you'd approve.
Their definition suits my purposes as well.
From that definition - "civil liberties and political freedom with representative democracy under the rule of law and emphasizes economic freedoms found in economic liberalism which is also called free market capitalism" We're not doing that now?
You must read things in context, magoo.
I was replying to rat, after he stated all the great things liberalism has done for humanity, and how conservatism has caused pestilence, death, and wailing. (paraphrasing)
I replied that what is passing for liberalism today, has no resemblance to "classic liberalism", but is rather a kind of "neo-communism" (again paraphrasing)
Classic liberalism has some very noble traits.
Again, what passes for liberalism today is some type of progressive communism.
What do you mean by "progressive communism" in that context?
Hüsker Dü
DA
. . . and Trumpism is a far, far cry from Reagan. (I feel bad even putting those two's names in the same sentence! and you know I'm not a great Reagan fan)
Hüsker Dü
DA
He sees the conservative parties transformation towards a strong man lead dictatorship and wants to counter that . . . and from where he is now Ted Cruz looks like a moderate.
He won, and liberals hate him, so he must be their guy. Fuck all that original constitution and bill of rights stuff.