NOAA Radiosonde Data Shows No Warming For 58 Years

Darn it there are plants that I was hoping to be able to grow that are not suitable for my 3 to 5 plant zone.

@Ditto: Naked gardening, but colony most likely only ants.

@Greg: to be averaged with pre 1979 when we were told in school about the coming ice age. Why do we have all the controls and regulations and trade allow trade with the worst offenders? Wouldn’t it make sense to limit trade with planet killer countries and make it here in USA. Oh thats right Soros is investing in coal. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3326974/posts

@Ditto, #6:

I was actually referring to the bottom chart; the one labeled NOAA Troposphere Temperature Anomaly, the relevant point being that temperatures have been above the baseline for every year but one.

Heller has also stuck together two charts that don’t display measurements for the same atmospheric layers. His attached data for the years from 1957 to 1977 were calculated based on measured temperatures from the earth’s surface (world surface) up to the 100mb layer (100 millibars of atmospheric pressure). That would include measurements taken over 10,000 feet higher than any in the NOAA’s 1977 to 2015 chart, which only includes data up to an altitude of 40,000 feet. (Barometric pressure of 100 millibars would be encountered at an altitude of 51,806 feet. Here’s a handy millibar/altitude conversion calculator.)

The guy is pitching curve balls.

@Greg: The whole subject of the post is that they only published the last 37 years. Silly people who succumbed to the religion of the warmist failed to understand that when the whole amount of data was produced, there was no warming!!

NOAA didn’t include all the data because they wanted to justify their funding.

@Randy:

You’re wasting your time with Greg. He’s a fanatical follower of the AGW Church, and (as with all it’s devotees,) he refuses to accept or outright ignores all science that contradicts his religious dogma.

You see. Greg thinks that any scientist that doesn’t agree with the high priests of his church, are blasphemers. Even when the ‘so called’ scientists of the AGW Church have been caught red-handed in conspiring to fudge the numbers and in excluding data that doesn’t support their conclusion (as meteorologists within and outside of NOAA caught the agency doing.)

Greg is a snake oil salesman. He doesn’t back his proselytizing up with anything except claims that he is right. We’ve been on to him for years. Greg has this pattern where he pretends to be an expert in things that he doesn’t know jack about. Even arguing with people who actually work within a industry or with the systems, (be it weapon systems, satellites, tracking systems, computer networks, computer forensics, etc…) Greg is a desk chair troll-warrior who sputters utter nonsense as if it is fact, and whom usually only relies on biased websites on those rare occasions when he does bother to try to prove his claims. Often as not, the very links he provides will not actually support his conclusions, and it’s not that rare to find that they prove the opposite. I can only postulate that somewhere in the internal workings of his trollish mind, Greg hopes that by providing a link it may give an appearance of legitimacy to his TS (Troll-Sh*t). God knows he rarely bothers to visit links given by others here that prove Greg is wrong.

@GregNobody is telling you what to think. We are telling you that you need to think instead of parroting Al Gore and his buddies in crime. I know that critical thinking is new for you. It is admirable that you still refer to your 6th grade science book with a date of 1955.

Greg -I was actually referring to the bottom chart; the one labeled NOAA Troposphere Temperature Anomaly, the relevant point being

If Greg bothered to actually read the whole article, (which we have noted he has a general tendency not to,) Greg would have noticed that the bottom graph was showing (as Randy noted,) where NOAA only included sufficient data that only seemed to prove (as opposed to proved) their incorrect conclusion. That graph was based on quite a bit of cheery-picked data, including highly questionable sensor data collected from weather sensor stations that originally were rural to suburb located, that have been developed into urban “heat island effect” locations which, when compared with past readings, introduces huge inaccuracies, rendering that data useless for comparative analysis. This has all been explained to Greg numerous times before, but he refuses to even acknowledge these truths, prefering to stick to his AGW Church’s flat-earther theories. Greg then performs an eye-roll inducing “superiority dance,” misrepresenting and then twisting the scientific conclusions of “Tony Heller aka Steven Goddard” in a ridiculous and disingenuous attempt to lamely (and incorrectly) prove that Greg’s antiquated and improperly used 60-year old middle high school knowledge of geology is superior to the author’s.

You need to look at the adjusted data rather than the raw data and you’ll see a steady increase in temperatures. The data needs to be adjusted to get a true picture of temperatures and temperature change rather than simply what the thermometer says. Weather stations move, usually from warm central urban areas to airports in cooler spots on the outskirts. Also, changes in temperature measuring instruments and methods have generally resulted in lower and more accurate readings in more recent times. In the 19th century, instruments were typically attached to walls of buildings and protected from the sun by metal screens but this had the effect of pushing up temperatures. Sometimes, a thermometer was simply placed on the wall of a tin building, thus the very high temperatures often recorded in this period. A little later, instruments were often put in gardens away from buildings, but infrared radiation from the ground could push temperatures up on calm sunny days. The instruments used to measure temperature also change, such as more accurate thermometers. High-tech automatic weather stations that largely counter the need for data adjustment are now common. The old readings therefore tend to be adjusted down.