Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers.

[Schleicher]

Obviously it's cooling down all the time:

[Spendulus]

Obviously it's cooling down all the time:

Indeed.

I have it on good authority that around here it cools down every day.  As night approaches.

Lol...

[hdbuck]

Obviously it's cooling down all the time:

Indeed.

I have it on good authority that around here it cools down every day.  As night approaches.

Lol...

blitzkrieg!

[dwma]

Nice avoiding the radiosity of CO2 etc.  Global warming has been known for some time due to measurable properties of gasses.  The skeptics never address this.  Never.  Yet they'll go on appealing to 'science'.

Ya don't think it's because they are laughing at you for using a word that does not even apply to gases?  Yep.  So darn it - those skeptics never address it.  They stick to using scientific terms and constructs.

Yeah.  Let's hear about that radiosity.  But hey, to be fair, you've already said you don't know much about the subject.  But then why the self righteous, moralistic, bigoted tone in arguments from ignorance?

Makes no sense.  Oh.  Wait.  It's WARMIST talking.  Yeah, I understand now.

Lol...

measurable properties of gasses....

The skeptics never address this....



What do you ACTUALLY KNOW about what skeptics address?  My impression is zero.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiosity_(radiometry)

Do you understand why scientists have been warning about global warming for decades?  If not radiosity, what is the physics property that explains how the radiation spectrum interacts with gasses ? Does it not fall under radiosity?

I'm listening... little man.

[Spendulus]

Nice avoiding the radiosity of CO2 etc.  Global warming has been known for some time due to measurable properties of gasses.  The skeptics never address this.  Never.  Yet they'll go on appealing to 'science'.

Ya don't think it's because they are laughing at you for using a word that does not even apply to gases?  Yep.  So darn it - those skeptics never address it.  They stick to using scientific terms and constructs.

Yeah.  Let's hear about that radiosity.  But hey, to be fair, you've already said you don't know much about the subject.  But then why the self righteous, moralistic, bigoted tone in arguments from ignorance?

Makes no sense.  Oh.  Wait.  It's WARMIST talking.  Yeah, I understand now.

Lol...

measurable properties of gasses....

The skeptics never address this....



What do you ACTUALLY KNOW about what skeptics address?  My impression is zero.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiosity_(radiometry)

Do you understand why scientists have been warning about global warming for decades?  If not radiosity, what is the physics property that explains how the radiation spectrum interacts with gasses ? Does it not fall under radiosity?

I'm listening... little man.

Absorption and emission lines from gases create the radiation spectrum.  View a star through a gas cloud, the spectrum will have missing lines.  View the same cloud from the side, they will be emitted as spectral lines.

You appear to be struggling to find words to describe the phenomena called an atmospheric greenhouse effect.

http://www.coyoteblog.com/the-basics-of-the-greenhouse-gas-effect

[dwma]

Nice avoiding the radiosity of CO2 etc.  Global warming has been known for some time due to measurable properties of gasses.  The skeptics never address this.  Never.  Yet they'll go on appealing to 'science'.

Ya don't think it's because they are laughing at you for using a word that does not even apply to gases?  Yep.  So darn it - those skeptics never address it.  They stick to using scientific terms and constructs.

Yeah.  Let's hear about that radiosity.  But hey, to be fair, you've already said you don't know much about the subject.  But then why the self righteous, moralistic, bigoted tone in arguments from ignorance?

Makes no sense.  Oh.  Wait.  It's WARMIST talking.  Yeah, I understand now.

Lol...

measurable properties of gasses....

The skeptics never address this....



What do you ACTUALLY KNOW about what skeptics address?  My impression is zero.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiosity_(radiometry)

Do you understand why scientists have been warning about global warming for decades?  If not radiosity, what is the physics property that explains how the radiation spectrum interacts with gasses ? Does it not fall under radiosity?

I'm listening... little man.

Absorption and emission lines from gases create the radiation spectrum.  View a star through a gas cloud, the spectrum will have missing lines.  View the same cloud from the side, they will be emitted as spectral lines.

You appear to be struggling to find words to describe the phenomena called an atmospheric greenhouse effect.

http://www.coyoteblog.com/the-basics-of-the-greenhouse-gas-effect

Well I was struggling to answer the same question that you could not.  Does not seem like you grasped that.  I could have described the process, but I was wishing to use a single word to refer to it.  It seems like radiosity isn't used in that context by anything I see, but the concepts are very similar to a lay person.

None the less, you seem to understand the above to some extent.  So what part of the cause do you disagree with?

[Spendulus]

Nice avoiding the radiosity of CO2 etc.  Global warming has been known for some time due to measurable properties of gasses.  The skeptics never address this.  Never.  Yet they'll go on appealing to 'science'.

Ya don't think it's because they are laughing at you for using a word that does not even apply to gases?  Yep.  So darn it - those skeptics never address it.  They stick to using scientific terms and constructs.

Yeah.  Let's hear about that radiosity.  But hey, to be fair, you've already said you don't know much about the subject.  But then why the self righteous, moralistic, bigoted tone in arguments from ignorance?

Makes no sense.  Oh.  Wait.  It's WARMIST talking.  Yeah, I understand now.

Lol...

measurable properties of gasses....

The skeptics never address this....



What do you ACTUALLY KNOW about what skeptics address?  My impression is zero.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiosity_(radiometry)

Do you understand why scientists have been warning about global warming for decades?  If not radiosity, what is the physics property that explains how the radiation spectrum interacts with gasses ? Does it not fall under radiosity?

I'm listening... little man.

Absorption and emission lines from gases create the radiation spectrum.  View a star through a gas cloud, the spectrum will have missing lines.  View the same cloud from the side, they will be emitted as spectral lines.

You appear to be struggling to find words to describe the phenomena called an atmospheric greenhouse effect.

http://www.coyoteblog.com/the-basics-of-the-greenhouse-gas-effect

Well I was struggling to answer the same question that you could not.  Does not seem like you grasped that.  I could have described the process, but I was wishing to use a single word to refer to it.  It seems like radiosity isn't used in that context by anything I see, but the concepts are very similar to a lay person.

None the less, you seem to understand the above to some extent.  So what part of the cause do you disagree with?

Cause?  If by this you mean the "greenhouse effect," that is a crude description of an atmospheric phenomena.  It does not take into account clouds, and water vapor.  Neither does it address the basic issue of radiation balance at the upper stratosphere.  Neither does it address the issue of the expansion of the atmosphere if and when that became "hotter."

As for your question "disagree with," I assume you have some idea that the words "greenhouse effect" are to be construed to be the "cause of global warming."  That's only a guess.  Some words that you didn't know are a cause of a phenomena that you don't understand and which has been "paused" for nineteen years?

[dwma]

Nice avoiding the radiosity of CO2 etc.  Global warming has been known for some time due to measurable properties of gasses.  The skeptics never address this.  Never.  Yet they'll go on appealing to 'science'.

Ya don't think it's because they are laughing at you for using a word that does not even apply to gases?  Yep.  So darn it - those skeptics never address it.  They stick to using scientific terms and constructs.

Yeah.  Let's hear about that radiosity.  But hey, to be fair, you've already said you don't know much about the subject.  But then why the self righteous, moralistic, bigoted tone in arguments from ignorance?

Makes no sense.  Oh.  Wait.  It's WARMIST talking.  Yeah, I understand now.

Lol...

measurable properties of gasses....

The skeptics never address this....



What do you ACTUALLY KNOW about what skeptics address?  My impression is zero.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiosity_(radiometry)

Do you understand why scientists have been warning about global warming for decades?  If not radiosity, what is the physics property that explains how the radiation spectrum interacts with gasses ? Does it not fall under radiosity?

I'm listening... little man.

Absorption and emission lines from gases create the radiation spectrum.  View a star through a gas cloud, the spectrum will have missing lines.  View the same cloud from the side, they will be emitted as spectral lines.

You appear to be struggling to find words to describe the phenomena called an atmospheric greenhouse effect.

http://www.coyoteblog.com/the-basics-of-the-greenhouse-gas-effect

Well I was struggling to answer the same question that you could not.  Does not seem like you grasped that.  I could have described the process, but I was wishing to use a single word to refer to it.  It seems like radiosity isn't used in that context by anything I see, but the concepts are very similar to a lay person.

None the less, you seem to understand the above to some extent.  So what part of the cause do you disagree with?

Cause?  If by this you mean the "greenhouse effect," that is a crude description of an atmospheric phenomena.  It does not take into account clouds, and water vapor.  Neither does it address the basic issue of radiation balance at the upper stratosphere.  Neither does it address the issue of the expansion of the atmosphere if and when that became "hotter."

As for your question "disagree with," I assume you have some idea that the words "greenhouse effect" are to be construed to be the "cause of global warming."  That's only a guess.  Some words that you didn't know are a cause of a phenomena that you don't understand and which has been "paused" for nineteen years?

The clouds and water vapor are a constant. Yes, they will be affect the climate but they're a constant. You guys like to throw in random stuff and appeal to science but never really go into detail about this stuff. I see it time and time again.  Your prose would have someone who isn't educated and intelligent give you credibility, but there really is little there.

So you believe in the science behind the basic argument of why global warming exists.  Can you tell me what has mitigated this and made it a non issue?

There is cynicism and then there is stupidity.  Those fossil fuels have been burned at a high rate over a really short span of time when you look at the history of the world. It should surprise no one that such things would not seriously impact the climate.

You guys always find one little thing and harp on it.  I'm not sure about the climate heating having paused for 19 years. There are many things that scientists attribute to the change that are already happening.  I'm sure some of these guys are wrong, but I highly doubt they're all wrong.

I can also show you how the previous month (well possibly Feb)  was the hottest month on record.

[tvbcof]

The clouds and water vapor are a constant. Yes, they will be affect the climate but they're a constant.  You guys like to throw in random stuff and appeal to science but never really go into detail about this stuff. I see it time and time again.  Your prose would have someone who isn't educated and intelligent give you credibility, but there really is little there.

So you believe in the science behind the basic argument of why global warming exists.  Can you tell me what has mitigated this and made it a non issue?

There is cynicism and then there is stupidity.  Those fossil fuels have been burned at a high rate over a really short span of time when you look at the history of the world. It should surprise no one that such things would not seriously impact the climate.

You guys always find one little thing and harp on it.  I'm not sure about the climate heating having paused for 19 years. There are many things that scientists attribute to the change that are already happening.  I'm sure some of these guys are wrong, but I highly doubt they're all wrong.

I can also show you how the previous month (well possibly Feb)  was the hottest month on record.

Why on earth would 'clouds and water vapor be constant'?  That assertion makes no sense on almost any time scale or any conceptual model.

A vague conceptual understanding that radiative energy transmissions occur, and CO2 has some influence on it, and it can make earth hot is a start but is not really going to do it.  Going to have to move forward a little bit from here.

In addition to starting to consider things a little bit quantitatively, two concepts to appreciate next are 'infrared opacity' and 'radiative convective equilibrium.

Here's a relatively clear explanation:

https://youtu.be/rCya4LilBZ8?t=55m30s

This lecture does a good job of illustrating the total absurdity of the whole global climate change scam.

[dwma]

Why on earth would 'clouds and water vapor be constant'?  That assertion makes no sense on almost any time scale or any conceptual model.

A vague conceptual understanding that radiative energy transmissions occur, and CO2 has some influence on it, and it can make earth hot is a start but is not really going to do it.  Going to have to move forward a little bit from here.

In addition to starting to consider things a little bit quantitatively, two concepts to appreciate next are 'infrared opacity' and 'radiative convective equilibrium.

Here's a relatively clear explanation:

https://youtu.be/rCya4LilBZ8?t=55m30s

This lecture does a good job of illustrating the total absurdity of the whole global climate change scam.

I *KNEW* I would get this sort of response.  I should have put "average" in there, but I'm sure you guys would still find some nonsense to avoid my point.  The average water vapor etc will be consistent in the short-term. It is like a climate change denier saying,

GLobal warming?  There are so many things to consider that have an effect on temperature.  Like if the sun is shining or not !

  I'm not going to spend too much time on you guys, because arguing with biases arising from mental defects is not what I consider productive.  I do hold out hope that you guys have something worth teaching me.

I am completely fine looking into what the 2 things you mention are, but I want a brief synopsis of why they demonstrate that 'greenhouse gasses' do not behave as expected . I don't want some description of some phenomena unless you can briefly explain to me why it counters the effect of CO2 (and other greenhouse gasses).

Actually I glanced at one of your videos.  1:30 hours of fighting a strawman.  No thanks.

Honestly, it is tedious even having discussions with you people.  You don't try to find the truth, you try to constanty justify why the other guy is wrong.  So if I put CO2, I'll get the 'You don't even know that CO2 is one of the weakest greenhouse gasses'.  So I have to constantly elaborate every little fucking thing. For that reason alone, I'd banned you guys off reddit if I were in charge.  Tedium.

[Spendulus]

Nice avoiding the radiosity of CO2 etc.  Global warming has been known for some time due to measurable properties of gasses.  The skeptics never address this.  Never.  Yet they'll go on appealing to 'science'.

Ya don't think it's because they are laughing at you for using a word that does not even apply to gases?  Yep.  So darn it - those skeptics never address it.  They stick to using scientific terms and constructs.

Yeah.  Let's hear about that radiosity.  But hey, to be fair, you've already said you don't know much about the subject.  But then why the self righteous, moralistic, bigoted tone in arguments from ignorance?

Makes no sense.  Oh.  Wait.  It's WARMIST talking.  Yeah, I understand now.

Lol...

measurable properties of gasses....

The skeptics never address this....



What do you ACTUALLY KNOW about what skeptics address?  My impression is zero.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiosity_(radiometry)

Do you understand why scientists have been warning about global warming for decades?  If not radiosity, what is the physics property that explains how the radiation spectrum interacts with gasses ? Does it not fall under radiosity?

I'm listening... little man.

Absorption and emission lines from gases create the radiation spectrum.  View a star through a gas cloud, the spectrum will have missing lines.  View the same cloud from the side, they will be emitted as spectral lines.

You appear to be struggling to find words to describe the phenomena called an atmospheric greenhouse effect.

http://www.coyoteblog.com/the-basics-of-the-greenhouse-gas-effect

Well I was struggling to answer the same question that you could not.  Does not seem like you grasped that.  I could have described the process, but I was wishing to use a single word to refer to it.  It seems like radiosity isn't used in that context by anything I see, but the concepts are very similar to a lay person.

None the less, you seem to understand the above to some extent.  So what part of the cause do you disagree with?

Cause?  If by this you mean the "greenhouse effect," that is a crude description of an atmospheric phenomena.  It does not take into account clouds, and water vapor.  Neither does it address the basic issue of radiation balance at the upper stratosphere.  Neither does it address the issue of the expansion of the atmosphere if and when that became "hotter."

As for your question "disagree with," I assume you have some idea that the words "greenhouse effect" are to be construed to be the "cause of global warming."  That's only a guess.  Some words that you didn't know are a cause of a phenomena that you don't understand and which has been "paused" for nineteen years?

The clouds and water vapor are a constant. Yes, they will be affect the climate but they're a constant. You guys like to throw in random stuff and appeal to science but never really go into detail about this stuff. I see it time and time again.  Your prose would have someone who isn't educated and intelligent give you credibility, but there really is little there.

So you believe in the science behind the basic argument of why global warming exists.  Can you tell me what has mitigated this and made it a non issue?

There is cynicism and then there is stupidity.  Those fossil fuels have been burned at a high rate over a really short span of time when you look at the history of the world. It should surprise no one that such things would not seriously impact the climate.

You guys always find one little thing and harp on it.  I'm not sure about the climate heating having paused for 19 years. There are many things that scientists attribute to the change that are already happening.  I'm sure some of these guys are wrong, but I highly doubt they're all wrong.

I can also show you how the previous month (well possibly Feb)  was the hottest month on record.

The study of the water cycle is called hydrology.  No, clouds and water vapor are not "constants"  Given that Alarmist Global Warming Hysteria predicts hurricanes, floods and droughts that should be obvious.  You asked strange things, got a serious response, and then started (again) criticizing.

I would like you to know, however that we are in agreement on the central issue.  Here is your statement exactly as you typed it.

Those fossil fuels have been burned at a high rate over a really short span of time when you look at the history of the world. It should surprise no one that such things would not seriously impact the climate.

Unfortunately, you can't get to be a Denier quite that easy.  You have to actually know some stuff and be able to discuss it rationally.

[Spendulus]

....
I am completely fine looking into what the 2 things you mention are, but I want a brief synopsis of why they demonstrate that 'greenhouse gasses' do not behave as expected . I don't want some description of some phenomena unless you can briefly explain to me why it counters the effect of CO2 (and other greenhouse gasses). ....

Has it occurred to you that nobody on this forum cares what "You Want?"

I'll briefly point out one of your logical errors.  You say "why they demonstrate that 'greenhouse gasses' do not behave as expected."

"As expected"   ?  By who?

If your "expectation," or that of those you have a religious faith in, is opposed to reality, that's not our problem, is it?  It's kind of yours problem.  Further, you would have to quantify that "as expected."  Exactly what does it mean?  If you think that "as expected" means some warming of the planet with increases in Co2, then state what amount of Co2 will cause a 1 degree C warming, and source that.

[dwma]

....
I am completely fine looking into what the 2 things you mention are, but I want a brief synopsis of why they demonstrate that 'greenhouse gasses' do not behave as expected . I don't want some description of some phenomena unless you can briefly explain to me why it counters the effect of CO2 (and other greenhouse gasses). ....

Has it occurred to you that nobody on this forum cares what "You Want?"

I'll briefly point out one of your logical errors.  You say "why they demonstrate that 'greenhouse gasses' do not behave as expected."

"As expected"   ?  By who?

If your "expectation," or that of those you have a religious faith in, is opposed to reality, that's not our problem, is it?  It's kind of yours problem.  Further, you would have to quantify that "as expected."  Exactly what does it mean?  If you think that "as expected" means some warming of the planet with increases in Co2, then state what amount of Co2 will cause a 1 degree C warming, and source that.

You find it worth telling me you don't care what I want and I am supposed to care?  You see how that works?

Ergo you're a fuckin' idiot.

Anyway, so more strawman.  The determination of the factor CO2 and greenhouse gasses play is a incredibly difficult question.  This what the denier's argument always boils down to.  A question so incredibly complicated that no one can answer it, only make attempts so therefore nothing else is valid.

So I guess you guys basically believe in manmade global warming, but you just discount it to such effect that it is irrelevant. That lets you embrace a portion of the accepted science without coming across as loons. You're still able to maintain your position and save face.

It is amazing how many word games you people play just to avoid the question that is key to the crux of the matter.

[dwma]

The study of the water cycle is called hydrology.  No, clouds and water vapor are not "constants"  Given that Alarmist Global Warming Hysteria predicts hurricanes, floods and droughts that should be obvious.  You asked strange things, got a serious response, and then started (again) criticizing.

I would like you to know, however that we are in agreement on the central issue.  Here is your statement exactly as you typed it.

Those fossil fuels have been burned at a high rate over a really short span of time when you look at the history of the world. It should surprise no one that such things would not seriously impact the climate.

Unfortunately, you can't get to be a Denier quite that easy.  You have to actually know some stuff and be able to discuss it rationally.

This "water cycle" is just a cycle.  The average effect is flat.  I'm not sure why that is so hard to understand, but the more bullshit you can throw out the easier it is to ignore the most basic question.  However, I can't state that basic question without paragraphs of ass-covering, because given in the most minor opportunity for you to trounce on something as wrong, you will undoubtedly do it. Solely to avoid the question

You guys don't want a real discussion.  It is ok. The rest of the intelligent educated populace sees you guys as loons and nothing ever changes my mind after my interactions.

[Spendulus]

The study of the water cycle is called hydrology.  No, clouds and water vapor are not "constants"  Given that Alarmist Global Warming Hysteria predicts hurricanes, floods and droughts that should be obvious.  You asked strange things, got a serious response, and then started (again) criticizing.

I would like you to know, however that we are in agreement on the central issue.  Here is your statement exactly as you typed it.

Those fossil fuels have been burned at a high rate over a really short span of time when you look at the history of the world. It should surprise no one that such things would not seriously impact the climate.

Unfortunately, you can't get to be a Denier quite that easy.  You have to actually know some stuff and be able to discuss it rationally.

This "water cycle" is just a cycle.  The average effect is flat.  I'm not sure why that is so hard to understand, but the more bullshit you can throw out the easier it is to ignore the most basic question.  However, I can't state that basic question without paragraphs of ass-covering, because given in the most minor opportunity for you to trounce on something as wrong, you will undoubtedly do it. Solely to avoid the question

You guys don't want a real discussion.  It is ok. The rest of the intelligent educated populace sees you guys as loons and nothing ever changes my mind after my interactions.

That's just fine.  As part of my work I have a 150 year study of rain over different parts of the state.   Sooner or later you will likely realize that when you say things such as a "water cycle is just a cycle" you'll be called on it.  That will result in you having to think things out more precisely and clearly.  It will cause you to realize that you really don't know a lot about many things. 

The larger community sees guys like you as hysterical greenies that want to tell other people how to act but are pretty clueless about any actual facts.  So far you haven't really said anything, have you?

You tried to talk about something called Radiosity.  You were told you were making no sense.
You didn't even seem to understand the greenhouse theory and it's limitations.
Then you said that burning all that fossil fuel would likely not impact the climate.
And finally you have a claim that hydrology is just a cycle that doesn't affect climate.

How about we just lay that last one to rest, shall we? 

Climate is defined as 10 year decadal periods.  Many cycles of water's movement are well understood to occur in 60 to 80 year cycles (PDO, ADO, etc).  Therefore, water does affect climate.

[Spendulus]

.....

"Climate alarmists" as you say, aren't saying that satellite are lying. They adopt a critical perspective over the idea of measuring temperature thanks to satellite and balloon as it needs to define an "average temperature".

They're not denying the existence of satellite measure, they just add all the temperature records way and try to find the truth out of it. You can't just threw away the temperatures recorded "on the ground" in the same way that you can't threw the satellite or balloon ones. You have to find the middle.
....

I'm certain you are well intentioned and sincere, but this these statements above are neither correct as to the practice of scientists, or true.  No, scientists do not just "add up all the temperature records."

Certain studies of climate may best be done with ground, or water temperatures.  Depends on the work.  However, for global temperatures, the only actual scientific method is to measure air at a specific altitude as is done by the polar orbiting satellites.
 
On the Earth, on the surface, no global temperature can be measured or estimated.  Atmosphere at, say 10,000 feet is a gas, period.  The Earth is a multiphase system with solid, liquid and gaseous components.  A combination of phases is not amendable to finding an "average temperature."

Also, yes we do have climate alarmists right on this thread that refuse to accept satellite data indicating no global warming in 19 years.  It's fairly routine to see climate alarmists who are Deniers of one sort or another of science.

[Spendulus]

The clouds and water vapor are a constant. Yes, they will be affect the climate but they're a constant.  You guys like to throw in random stuff and appeal to science but never really go into detail about this stuff. I see it time and time again.  Your prose would have someone who isn't educated and intelligent give you credibility, but there really is little there.

So you believe in the science behind the basic argument of why global warming exists.  Can you tell me what has mitigated this and made it a non issue?

There is cynicism and then there is stupidity.  Those fossil fuels have been burned at a high rate over a really short span of time when you look at the history of the world. It should surprise no one that such things would not seriously impact the climate.

You guys always find one little thing and harp on it.  I'm not sure about the climate heating having paused for 19 years. There are many things that scientists attribute to the change that are already happening.  I'm sure some of these guys are wrong, but I highly doubt they're all wrong.

I can also show you how the previous month (well possibly Feb)  was the hottest month on record.

Why on earth would 'clouds and water vapor be constant'?  That assertion makes no sense on almost any time scale or any conceptual model.

A vague conceptual understanding that radiative energy transmissions occur, and CO2 has some influence on it, and it can make earth hot is a start but is not really going to do it.  Going to have to move forward a little bit from here.

In addition to starting to consider things a little bit quantitatively, two concepts to appreciate next are 'infrared opacity' and 'radiative convective equilibrium.

Here's a relatively clear explanation:

https://youtu.be/rCya4LilBZ8?t=55m30s

This lecture does a good job of illustrating the total absurdity of the whole global climate change scam.

Although maybe too technical for the reader/poster you responded to, that's a pretty good lecture. 

[protokol]

OK, without any ad hominem attacks (which this thread seems to be descending into), can someone explain simply what's wrong with this data:

http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-analyses-reveal-record-shattering-global-warm-temperatures-in-2015

Specifically, the claim that the GMST in 2015 was the warmest since 1880, and that "15 of the 16 warmest years on record occurred since 2001".

I understand that some of this data may been tweaked, but I've read from reputable sources that this tweaking is a valid manipulation of skewed data from the past; ie. it is correcting inconsistencies due to recording and locational anomalies.

If the data is invalid, I would appreciate a clear and concise explanation as to why this is the case. If data from another source is more valid, please reference the data and explain why it is more valid. I hate how both sides of the climate change debate have descended into shit-slinging and misinformation, I just want some unbiased information.

[Spendulus]

....
I understand that some of this data may been tweaked...

It's important to understand that the ground based thermometer database is AMENDABLE TO TWEAKING.  Period.

OK, without any ad hominem attacks (which this thread seems to be descending into), can someone explain simply what's wrong with this data:
....
Specifically, the claim that the GMST in 2015 was the warmest since 1880, and that "15 of the 16 warmest years on record occurred since 2001".
....
If the data is invalid, I would appreciate a clear and concise explanation as to why this is the case. ....

Ground temperature data is okay for regional climate issue, but not global.  By it's nature, "ground temperature data" attempts to combine multiphase physical systems into an aggregate of "temperature."  To see the problem with this, consider trying to take the temperature above an ice cube, or six inches above a pan of boiling water.    These systems are not in thermal equilibrium.

A temperature reading from a polar orbiting satellite measures aspects of gas ONLY, say at 10k feet.  It is thus a measure of a system which is in thermal equilibrium and which thus is credible.

The ground temperature network is inappropriate and actually ridiculous for attempting to derive a "global temperature."   The fact that in the US, an obscure sub agency of NASA uses NOAA data to produce propaganda on "Latest record shattering Temperature <<blah blah blah>>" is irrelevant.  

A reasonable way to deal with this would be to consider as credible, the satellite data, and not as credible, the ground based thermometer networks, for matters concerning "climate change."  This will eventually come to pass, but for some years expect to see the bureaucracies built on top of the thermometer networks to continue to shout.

[Wilikon]

....
I understand that some of this data may been tweaked...

It's important to understand that the ground based thermometer database is AMENDABLE TO TWEAKING.  Period.

OK, without any ad hominem attacks (which this thread seems to be descending into), can someone explain simply what's wrong with this data:
....
Specifically, the claim that the GMST in 2015 was the warmest since 1880, and that "15 of the 16 warmest years on record occurred since 2001".
....
If the data is invalid, I would appreciate a clear and concise explanation as to why this is the case. ....

Ground temperature data is okay for regional climate issue, but not global.  By it's nature, "ground temperature data" attempts to combine multiphase physical systems into an aggregate of "temperature."  To see the problem with this, consider trying to take the temperature above an ice cube, or six inches above a pan of boiling water.    These systems are not in thermal equilibrium.

A temperature reading from a polar orbiting satellite measures aspects of gas ONLY, say at 10k feet.  It is thus a measure of a system which is in thermal equilibrium and which thus is credible.

The ground temperature network is inappropriate and actually ridiculous for attempting to derive a "global temperature."   The fact that in the US, an obscure sub agency of NASA uses NOAA data to produce propaganda on "Latest record shattering Temperature <<blah blah blah>>" is irrelevant.  

A reasonable way to deal with this would be to consider as credible, the satellite data, and not as credible, the ground based thermometer networks, for matters concerning "climate change."  This will eventually come to pass, but for some years expect to see the bureaucracies built on top of the thermometer networks to continue to shout.

Too bad you weren't my science teacher....