# NOAA Hottest Year on Record: 1997 62F



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 24, 2016)

We've been in a 2 decade pause since then


----------



## BuckToothMoron (Sep 24, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> We've been in a 2 decade pause since then



Yea, thanks to Obama. If Trump wins then the earth will start to heat up again and all the Polar bears will die. Vote for Hellary and buy a winter coat!


----------



## Pogo (Sep 24, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> We've been in a 2 decade pause since then




Haha, don't think so.  I've got like 83 degrees here with tomatoes still coming.  It's been a long long summer.  I'm on my second round of vegetables.  On the other hand two years ago I was running the wood stove on October _fourth_, and that doesn't run until it dips below at the most 30.  This year?  Still running fans and keeping all the windows open.

It's impossible to gauge a trend that takes centuries by looking at the last 19 years.  That's absurd.  But the contrast of extremes from year to year as I just laid out above does indicate something unnatural.  Last year winter didn't arrive until like January.

But as long as we're here, why doncha edumacate me on the reasoning behind all this ----

---- what exactly is the point in making excuses for polluters?  What do you get out of doing it?  You think they're gonna pay you or sump'm?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 24, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> We've been in a 2 decade pause since then



And GAT fell below the base trend line this week... in the unaltered data sets and Balloon data sets... We have again past a point where the pause is again breathing..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 24, 2016)

Pogo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > We've been in a 2 decade pause since then
> ...



One small region is now global proof?  ROFLMAO...


----------



## TheOldSchool (Sep 24, 2016)

Pogo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > We've been in a 2 decade pause since then
> ...


What Frank won't tell you (maybe because he's crazy?  I really have no idea) is that the NOAA declared literally every year there has been since 1997 as being hotter than 1997.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 24, 2016)

Pogo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > We've been in a 2 decade pause since then
> ...



*It's impossible to gauge a trend that takes centuries by looking at the last 19 years. That's absurd.
*
Warmers do that all the time.
It is absurd.

*---- what exactly is the point in making excuses for polluters?*

CO2 isn't pollution.

*What do you get out of doing it?*

Fossil fuels are pretty fucking useful.
Can't run an advanced civilization with just windmills.


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 24, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> We've been in a 2 decade pause since then


LIAR!
1997 does not even make it into the top 16.






Global Analysis - Annual 2015 | State of the Climate | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

With the contribution of such record warmth at year's end and with 10 months of the year record warm for their respective months, including the last 8 (January was second warmest for January and April was third warmest), the average global temperature across land and ocean surface areas for 2015 was 0.90°C *(1.62°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F)*

The 2015 temperature also marks the largest margin by which an annual temperature record has been broken. Prior to this year, the largest margin occurred in 1998, when the annual temperature surpassed the record set in 1997 by 0.12°C (0.22°F). Incidentally, 1997 and 1998 were the last years in which a similarly strong El Niño was occurring. *The annual temperature anomalies for 1997 and 1998 were 0.51°C (0.92°F) and 0.63°C (1.13°F), respectively, above the 20th century average, both well below the 2015 temperature departure.*


----------



## cnm (Sep 24, 2016)

TheOldSchool said:


> What Frank won't tell you (maybe because he's crazy? I really have no idea) is that the NOAA declared literally every year there has been since 1997 as being hotter than 1997.


It's because he's convinced there's a world wide conspiracy to force him to buy climate scientists' lunches.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Sep 24, 2016)

Quite a few years have been cooler then 1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2006
2008
2009
2011
2012


As more data is looked over and some new data(ship reports and personal measurements) comes in things do change slightly. That is why there's a error bar.

This is why we look generally at the long term trend to see the global warming. Sure, nino's like 1998 and 2016 area important as the climate system in the 1998 case released much more energy into the atmosphere and took a step in global avg temperatures and may do so again.

The thing is super nino's are such a "anomaly" above the means, we don't measure the warming from peak to peak but the scatterpoint trend of a time span.


----------



## westwall (Sep 24, 2016)

Pogo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > We've been in a 2 decade pause since then
> ...





That's cute.  It was 60 degrees in Anaheim last night.  There is snow about 400 feet above my house.   Unusual?  No.  But then neither is anything that the AGW supporters claim either.

NOTHING.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 24, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > We've been in a 2 decade pause since then
> ...



LOL

drank Obama Kool Aid

The average is 56.9.  Is 62F bigger or smaller than that and by how much.

LOL


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 24, 2016)

TheOldSchool said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


LOL

Only after Obama made they alter the 1997 temperature of 62F


----------



## cnm (Sep 24, 2016)

westwall said:


> Unusual? No. But then neither is anything that the AGW supporters claim either.
> 
> NOTHING.


Well, this is a little unusual...





Data.GISS:  GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Analysis Graphs and Plots


----------



## TheOldSchool (Sep 24, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


You sure that really happened, and it's not just the fever from your ebola talking?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Sep 24, 2016)

Local doesn't equal global.


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 24, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Oh come on now, I nailed westwall on that same lie in another thread below that you also posted in, and he wasn't stupid enough to repeat it! I even have the same things highlighted that show that 2 different baselines were used in your lie.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/15281710/


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 24, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


Yeah, that's the ticket!


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 24, 2016)

westwall said:


> That's cute.  It was 60 degrees in Anaheim last night.  There is snow about 400 feet above my house.   Unusual?  No.  But then neither is anything that the AGW supporters claim either.
> 
> NOTHING.


It was 90 degrees at the Jersey shore yesterday, the second 90 degree day this week, and that is unusual.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 24, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



You drank the Kool-aid 

How was the 62F arrived at, was it directly measured?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 24, 2016)

How does a baseline change the measurements? Do they actually measure tempetature?


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 24, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Like Trump, you just can't stop yourself from lying.
As you well know, your 62F was measured using a 30 year average from 1961 to 1990, it is right in YOUR graphic! The 56.9F average you are comparing it to uses the 20th CENTURY baseline. Using the same 20th century baseline for both years, the only honest way of doing it which is why no denier will ever do it that way, 2015 was *0.7°F warmer than 1997.*


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 24, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



So you have no idea what you're talking about.

How was the 1997 temperature measured?  What does a baseline have to do with direct measurements


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 24, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> How does a baseline change the measurements? Do they actually measure tempetature?


Because one is an average of 30 years and the other is an average of 100 years. The 100 year average is going to be more accurate than the 30 year average by a factor greater than 3
Funny how the deniers have no problem with Roy Spencer constantly changing his UAH baseline to get the least warming, and he is continually using a 30 year baseline, so he is not changing it because a longer period is more accurate!!!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 24, 2016)

Outside temperature is 67F, after taking both the 30 year and 100 year baseline into account, the temperature is still 67F


----------



## westwall (Sep 24, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > That's cute.  It was 60 degrees in Anaheim last night.  There is snow about 400 feet above my house.   Unusual?  No.  But then neither is anything that the AGW supporters claim either.
> ...





Care to bet.  Try looking at the historical temp record going back 100 years and you will see it is nothing unusual.  

You guys look at a small time frame and ascribe magical powers to it.


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 24, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Because they don't measure temperature directly, they measure anomalies, the deviation from the baseline. DUH!!!


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 24, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Outside temperature is 67F, after taking both the 30 year and 100 year baseline into account, the temperature is still 67F


Deniers always play dumb when they want to keep lying.
The 67F anomaly will be different for a 30 year baseline than a 100 year baseline, as if you didn't know!


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 24, 2016)

westwall said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Well since the average here is in the low 70s, it certainly is not average!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 24, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Outside temperature is 67F, after taking both the 30 year and 100 year baseline into account, the temperature is still 67F
> ...



The outside temperature is currently 67F, please explain to me how and when the baseline come into play


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 24, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Where is the anomaly today?


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 24, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


The baseline comes into play whenever the data is recorded as an anomaly, which is the only way the data is recorded by scientists.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 24, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Do thermometers measure temperatures or anomalies?

Can you please show us the instrument that measures anomalies instead of temperature


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 24, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


It is the deviation from the baseline average for the temperature station where you got your 67F reading.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 24, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



The NOAA site in the op talks about a global average temperature. Where does the baseline come into play on a direct measurement


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 24, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



So the outside temperature isn't 67F?


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 24, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


You are wearing the dumb act quite thin. If you do not understand anomalies then you know nothing about how temperature data is recorded and compared.

Anomalies are CALCULATED using the measured temperature for that day and the average for that temperature station.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 24, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...




Do you believe ANY of what you wrote?  You're saying that the outside temperature isn't accurate but can be adjusted by some statistical abstract. 

The outside temperature is still 67F, what the anomaly today.

Please do the math for me


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 24, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


The temperature in your graphic is NOT a direct temperature measurement, and it says so right in your own graphic in the last sentence.


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 24, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Give me the exact temperature station where you got your imaginary 67F.


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 24, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> You're saying that the outside temperature isn't accurate but can be adjusted by some statistical abstract.


I said no such thing, and you know it. Your creating a Straw Man proves that you know you are lying.
Thank you.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 24, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



No, honey boo boo. The first sentence said the global average temperature was 62F.

The chart was based on the 30 year average. 

The Warmers changed the direct measure to fit their failed theory


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 24, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


You Trumpists just can't stop yourselves from lying. Read the part in smaller type just above the sentence with the 62.45F.


----------



## Pogo (Sep 24, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Zat rite.

Might wanna define "advanced".  Diga me if it includes stuff like this....


----------



## Pogo (Sep 24, 2016)

westwall said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



That's cute.  But doesn't address the question at all, now does it?

I'm inconvenient that way.  Frank wouldn't even touch it at all.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 24, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Learn to read, please.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 24, 2016)

Pogo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > We've been in a 2 decade pause since then
> ...


I ignored this because it was totally off topic. You didn't even read the OP


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 24, 2016)

Warmers dont know the difference between a measurement and a baseline. They mistakenly believe that the baseline alters the direct temperature measurement. 

That they got away with the lie means that a Trump needs to fire everyone involved in the fraud


----------



## Pogo (Sep 24, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



No I think you ignored it because you can't think of an answer, because you never thought about it before.

And of course I read the OP.  How the hell could I take specific issue with it if I hadn't?

So the question stands --- what do you have to gain from running around doing polluters' work for them?  You realize you're working for them for _free_, right?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 24, 2016)

Last year, Miguel Cabrera had the top batting average of .338.  If we did a chart and showed how that compared to the averages over the past 30 years, his BA is still .338.

Now Obama and the Warmers take over and need to adjust the .338 away, so they compare to the averages over the past 100 years and now say that his 2015 average is now .330.

Does this make sense to anyone?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 24, 2016)

Pogo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Seriously, you're in an alternate universe. It's a simple math concept


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 24, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Warmers dont know the difference between a measurement and a baseline. *They mistakenly believe that the baseline alters the direct temperature measurement*.


LIAR!

They are smart enough to know that there is no direct GLOBAL temperature measurement, but rather the GLOBAL temperature is calculated using the anomalies collected from all the different temperature stations all over the globe. The only way that data can be combined is using anomalies which require a baseline average to calculate.


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 24, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Last year, Miguel Cabrera had the top batting averaget of .338.  If we did a chart and showed how that compared to the averages, his BA is still .338.
> 
> Now Obama and the Warmers take over and need to adjust the .338 away, so they compare to the averages over the past 100 years and now say that his 2015 average is now .330.
> 
> Does this make sense to anyone?


Nothing you post makes sense to anyone, even to you.


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 24, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


You first!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 24, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Warmers dont know the difference between a measurement and a baseline. *They mistakenly believe that the baseline alters the direct temperature measurement*.
> ...


If you're not measuring, what are the thermometers doing???


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 24, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Warmers dont know the difference between a measurement and a baseline. *They mistakenly believe that the baseline alters the direct temperature measurement*.
> ...



You interchanged temperature and anomaly as if they're the same.

Fail


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 24, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Where is this GLOBAL thermometer located that directly measures the temperature of the entire globe every day???


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 24, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


No I didn't, but thanks again for the Straw Man.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 24, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...





edthecynic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



I thought it was the mathematical average of all the reading from all the stations through the year.

You're saying the average is not an average


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 24, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


You said the temperature was calculated using anomalies


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 24, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


And how exactly are you going to calibrate all the thermometers exactly the same all over the globe to use their DIRECT measurements as an average????????

You can't, which is why anomalies are used which can be averaged globally.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 24, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


So we're back to my outside temperature is 67F what anomaly factor should I apply to it?


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 24, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


You need the average temperature for that particular thermometer for that day over the history of that temperature station to calculate the anomaly for that day. You have not provided that data.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 24, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



You're doing it again, you're confusing average and anomaly.


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 24, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


No I'm not, you are just playing dumb rather than admit you knew you were lying this whole time.

The local anomaly is the DIFFERENCE between the current temperature and the average temperature for this current day at this particular temperature station.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 24, 2016)

Now you understand why the Warmers are reporting "anomaly" rather than average temperature. 

The average peaked in 1997 at 62F


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 24, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Now you understand why the Warmers are reporting "anomaly" rather than average temperature.
> 
> The average peaked in 1997 at 62F


LIAR!!!!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 24, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



So if the anomaly is 2F, you're telling me that my thermometer is wrong, that it's not really 67F, it's really 65?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 24, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Now you understand why the Warmers are reporting "anomaly" rather than average temperature.
> ...



NOAA reported average temperature of 62F in 1987, what's the 2015 average?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 24, 2016)

20th century average us 56.9.  The 1997 average was 62, that 5F warmer than average


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 24, 2016)

Anyone else terrified that humans can be so totally brainwashed and accepting of a total lie in such a short time?


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 24, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


NO. Stop playing dumb. 

If the average temp is 65F for this day at that station, and you measure 67F at that same station today the anomaly for today is +2F. The anomaly does not change the measured temp, it only provides a means to compare data from around the globe in a scientific manner.


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 24, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> 20th century average us 56.9.  The 1997 average was 62, that 5F warmer than average


Using two DIFFERENT baselines, so the numbers cannot be HONESTLY compared. But deniers are NEVER honest!!!!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 24, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > 20th century average us 56.9.  The 1997 average was 62, that 5F warmer than average
> ...



 Much like a batting average, the 1997 average was 62F, that it 5F higher than the baseline does not affect that temperature


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 24, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


*
As you well know, your 62F was measured using a 30 year average from 1961 to 1990, it is right in YOUR graphic! The 56.9F average you are comparing it to uses the 20th CENTURY baseline.*

You think the 1961-1990 average was 5 degrees higher than the average for the entire 20th Century?
You have a link to back up that claim?


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 24, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Stop lying!

The 1997 average was 57.92F and 2015 was 58.62F using the 20th century baseline for both.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 24, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


So if the anomaly doesn't change the temperature, then the 1997 average remains 62F


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 24, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


The link was already provided. Why didn't you click on it?

Here it is again:

Global Analysis - Annual 2015 | State of the Climate |  National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 24, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > We've been in a 2 decade pause since then
> ...



Too Funny,  You cite the heavily adjusted Karl Et Al data sets as proof..  No one with any credibility uses this without  heavy disclaimers and warnings about the data corruption.


----------



## westwall (Sep 24, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Outside temperature is 67F, after taking both the 30 year and 100 year baseline into account, the temperature is still 67F
> ...





The point is 30 years is meaningless in terms of global temp averages.  Even your heroes have admitted that.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 24, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



That's not what NOAA reported at the time prior to the Obama adjustments


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 24, 2016)

TheOldSchool said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Right after they adjusted up the data.... they cry it was the hottest ev'a and ignore the data sets that show their lies...

This crap is so disgusting..


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 24, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


No, the baseline changed from 30 years from 1961 - 1990 to 100 years, the 20th Century average.
If NOAA had continued using the 1961-1990 baseline for 2015, 2015 would have been more than 62F


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 24, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



They seem to miss that point quite often..


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 24, 2016)

After adjustment for the baseline, Ted Williams is the last of the .380 hitters


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 24, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


There were no Obama adjustments. The baseline was changed to a longer period in 1999, according to YOUR own posted graphic!!!

From your own graphic in the OP:

Please note: the estimate for *the baseline global temperature used in this study differed, and was warmer than, the baseline estimate (Jones et al., 1999) used currently.* This report has been superseded by subsequent analyses. However, as with all climate monitoring reports, it is left online as it was written at the time.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 24, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Your talking apples and oranges here ..  

The anomaly base line is created from an average of the average global temp and the individual years plotted as a divergence from that average is called the anomaly..   they like to play with this base line to make it look warmer than it really is.

The average of a temperature is quite different, being just the average of one years temps.

Comparing these two is like comparing apples to oranges..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 24, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Jones did a real winner there using two different anomaly base lines and then tried to compare them.. However, the fact remains that 1997 was far warmer than today, in *actual observed temperature*, despite the base line manipulations of averages.


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 24, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


BULLSHIT!


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 24, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


BULLSHIT!


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 24, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> The anomaly base line is created from an average of the average global temp and the individual years plotted as a divergence from that average is called the anomaly.. they like to play with this base line to make it look warmer than it really is.


Global Surface Temperature Anomalies | Monitoring References |  National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)


*Why do some of the products use different reference periods?*
The national maps show temperature anomalies relative to the 1981–2010 base period. This period is used in order to comply with a recommended World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Policy, which suggests using the latest decade for the 30-year average. For the global-scale averages (global land and ocean, land-only, ocean-only, and hemispheric time series), the reference period is adjusted to the 20th Century average for conceptual simplicity (the period is more familiar to more people, and establishes a longer-term average). *The adjustment does not change the shape of the time series or affect the trends within it.*


----------



## jon_berzerk (Sep 24, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> We've been in a 2 decade pause since then



well that isnt what the models said 

--LOL


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 24, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



So baseline affects thermometer readings?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 24, 2016)

Changing from actual readings to "anomalies" isn't even a good sleight of hand, it's a blatant attempt to defraud.


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 24, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


You've been told that was wrong more than once. No matter how many times you repeat your lies they still remain lies. All you do is show everyone that you are a premeditated serial liar.


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 24, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Changing from actual readings to "anomalies" isn't even a good sleight of hand, it's a blatant attempt to defraud.


Nobody changed from actual readings to anomalies, both have always been used. You are not even a good liar in your blatant attempt to deceive.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 24, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



The temperature averaged 62F in 1997...what changed


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 24, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


You already posted the answer to that in your Op which you pretend to be too stupid to understand so you can continue to lie.

From your OP:

Please note: the estimate for the baseline global temperature used in this study differed, and was warmer than, the baseline estimate (Jones et al., 1999) used currently. This report has been superseded by subsequent analyses. However, as with all climate monitoring reports, it is left online as it was written at the time.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 24, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



You still think that anomalies overwrite average temperature


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 24, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


That is YOUR lie, not mine.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 24, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


So you agree that the 1997 temperature was 62F


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 25, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


If you agree that 2015 was more than 62.45F using the same 1961-1990 baseline.
According to WMO using the 1961-1990 baseline 2015 was 62.78F

http://ane4bf-datap1.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/wmocms/s3fs-public/news/multimedia/pr 2_1_0.png


----------



## ScienceRocks (Sep 25, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...




Will 2016 reach 63f?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 25, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



You're baseline is 56.9F, so being 2F above that still leaves you a solid 3F short of the "warmest ever"


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 25, 2016)

Matthew said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Matt, what's your baseline


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 25, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


POT MEET KETTLE...

Look into the mirror...


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 25, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


You are doing it again, using 2 different baselines, no surprise there.

The WMO uses the same 1961-1990 baseline for BOTH dates and the WMO has 2015 as the warmest year on record and has 16 years warmer than 1997.






_*Global annual average temperatures anomalies (relative to 1961-1990) *based on an average of three global temperature data sets (HadCRUT.4.4.0.0, GISTEMP and NOAAGlobalTemp) from 1950 to 2015. Bars are coloured according to whether the year was classified as an El Niño year (red), a La Niña year (blue) or an ENSO-neutral year (grey). Note uncertainty ranges are not shown, but are around 0.1°C._


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 25, 2016)

Conflating an anomaly and actual temperature , A base line is a function of AVERAGES.. This moves as people change the base number of years or manufacture temperature changes.


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 25, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Conflating an anomaly and actual temperature , A base line is a function of AVERAGES.. This moves as people change the base number of years or manufacture temperature changes.


That is exactly what you deniers are doing because you know you have been caught lying.

Explainer: How do scientists measure global temperature? | Carbon Brief


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 25, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Can't you please state what your baseline number is? Isn't it 56.9F?


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 25, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


For which period, 1961-1990 or the 20th century?
YOU keep trying to use two different baselines. 
With the WMO 1961-1990 baseline for both dates they have 2015 as the warmest year with 16 years warmer than 1997.
With the NOAA 20th century baseline for both dates they have 2015 as the warmest year with 16 years warmer than 1997.


----------



## Pogo (Sep 25, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Exactly it is.  You work for "zero".  Laying out lines of Koch for nothing.
Whelp --- good luck wit dat.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Sep 25, 2016)

Pogo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > We've been in a 2 decade pause since then
> ...



*
It's impossible to gauge a trend that takes centuries by looking at the last 19 years.*

So you admit only 130 years of record keeping is useless?

Thank you for having some common sense please tell the others



.


----------



## Pogo (Sep 25, 2016)

bear513 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...




Not "useless", no.  Quote where I said that?
Fatter o' mact, as a baseball fan the idea that '"130 years of record keeping being useless" doesn't even compute.

For that matter, quote where I "admit" anything?

Here's a novel idea --- actually read the post before commenting.

SEEya.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Sep 25, 2016)

Pogo said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...




Lmfao

You got caught admit it, trying to debunk Frank's op.



.


----------



## Pogo (Sep 25, 2016)

bear513 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...




"Got caught"?  At what?  Interesting that whatever it was, you can't show it.  Doncha think?

Actually I axed Frank a question-- which he then ran away from.  That's not exactly me getting "caught".
Think about it.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Sep 25, 2016)

Pogo said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...




You are trying to run right now by trying to compare baseball records which started around the same time as temperature records., so are you saying the earth is only 130 year's old?


----------



## Pogo (Sep 25, 2016)

bear513 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



?

Lemme axe you sump'm ---- ever think about learning to read?


So  uh.... .yyyyyyyyyyeah that's what I'm saying, the "earth is only 130 years old".  It was invented in 1879 as an ad gimmick for MAB paints.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 25, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...




Can you pick at least one "baseline" and tell us what that temperature is?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 25, 2016)

Pogo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



What is the temperature associated with any of these "Baselines"?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 25, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



The link doesn't show the 1961-1990 average was 5 degrees higher than the average for the entire 20th Century.

Try again?


----------



## Pogo (Sep 25, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



  No idea.  Numbers just ain't my thing, man.  Psychology is.  
That's why I axed the question I did.  Which still sits there unmolested.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 25, 2016)

Pogo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Ax a ques-shun in the same reality as the OP and I'll answer


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 25, 2016)

That's odd, they keep talking about a baseline but they don't seem to know what it means


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 25, 2016)

Pogo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Need a hint?

56.9F


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 25, 2016)

Matthew said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



NO...

As of today it is statistically impossible without fabricating 1.3 deg C positive anomaly for the next three months..






Graph Source


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 25, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


It does if you go back to 1997 the last year NOAA used the 1961-1990 baseline. The Right need to be hand held for everything!
Try again.


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 25, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Hogwash!

UAH is not ground temperature, but even Spencer admits he would need steady cooling in the last 4 months of 2016 to just tie 1998.

UAH Global Temperature Update for August, 2016: +0.44 deg. C «  Roy Spencer, PhD
To see how we are now progressing toward a record warm year in the satellite data, t*he following chart shows the average rate of cooling for the rest of 2016 that would be required* to tie 1998 as warmest year in the 38-year satellite record:


----------



## cnm (Sep 25, 2016)

westwall said:


> Try looking at the historical temp record going back 100 years and you will see it is nothing unusual.


funny you should say that...





Data.GISS:  GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Analysis Graphs and Plots


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 25, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Yes, anytime liberals want to spend $76 trillion on windmills, we're going to want you to walk us through the data.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 25, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Perhaps you can give us a link where there is a proposal to spend 75  trillion on windmills?


----------



## cnm (Sep 25, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Warmers dont know the difference between a measurement and a baseline. They mistakenly believe that the baseline alters the direct temperature measurement.


You are an unbelievably ignorant rightard dumb fuck bloviating away on subjects of which you know nothing, even when your basic errors are pointed out to you.

The temperature for your supposed record year was derived by adding the anomaly for the year to the 30 year average/baseline.

This is pointed out at the start of the document, which has been pointed out to you multiple times, but which you are too thick to grasp.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 25, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


_
The survey says $1.9 trillion per year will be needed over the next 40 years for incremental investments in green technologies. At least $1.1 trillion of that will need to be made in developing countries to meet increasing food and energy demands.

UN News - New industrial revolution needed to avert ‘planetary catastrophe’ – UN report_


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 25, 2016)

cnm said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Warmers dont know the difference between a measurement and a baseline. They mistakenly believe that the baseline alters the direct temperature measurement.
> ...



So what you're saying is that to measure the "global average temperature in 1997" they didn't even use thermometers, they just added some random numbers to the baseline?

How was the 1997* average* temperature derived?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 25, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



^ Chart shows a 2 decade pause in temperature


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 25, 2016)

cnm said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Try looking at the historical temp record going back 100 years and you will see it is nothing unusual.
> ...




If you're off by 5F in 1997, how accurate was the baseline measure in 1880?


----------



## cnm (Sep 25, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> How was the 1997* average* temperature derived?


I imagine the average anomaly for that year was added to the average/baseline temperature.


----------



## cnm (Sep 25, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> If you're off by 5F in 1997, how accurate was the baseline measure in 1880?


All you do is reveal more of your ignorance while you bloviate on matters of which you have not a clue and will not be told.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 25, 2016)

cnm said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > If you're off by 5F in 1997, how accurate was the baseline measure in 1880?
> ...



How do you have temperature readings accurate to a tenth of degree from 1880?

Can you share the data?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 25, 2016)

cnm said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > How was the 1997* average* temperature derived?
> ...



Did the use an anomolymomoter, is that different than a thermometer, you know the thing they use to actually measure temperature


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 25, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> So what you're saying is that to measure the "global average temperature in 1997" they didn't even use thermometers, they just added some random numbers to the baseline?


Nope, you own that lie all by yourself!


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 25, 2016)

cnm said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > How was the 1997* average* temperature derived?
> ...



SO were adding and averaged temperature to the averaged temperature base line..  Adding and average to an average to get your hottest ev'a...

You don't have a fucking clue just like the rest of them..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 25, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...


You failed graph reading with Crick?  Tell me where we are today in anomaly? Your own graph calls you a liar...


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 26, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Notice how deniers ALWAYS change other peoples words to create their lying Straw Man, and then accuse others of not having a clue!


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 26, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


You just plain failed reading!
The post I replied to said a +1.3 degree anomaly would be needed for the next 3 months for 2016 to beat 1997/8 as the warmest year, and used a UAH graph manufactured by  the dishonest WUWT denier site and I simply posted their actual graph with Spencer's own words to expose the obvious lie.

BTW, I also pointed out that the phony WUWT chart and the UAH chart were NOT ground temperature data, all of which went completely over your head.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 26, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > So what you're saying is that to measure the "global average temperature in 1997" they didn't even use thermometers, they just added some random numbers to the baseline?
> ...



What instrument measures these "Anomalies"?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 26, 2016)

cnm said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > How was the 1997* average* temperature derived?
> ...



You imagine? 

How are baseball player batting averages measured?


----------



## Crick (Sep 26, 2016)

You don't actually "measure" an average Frank,  you calculate it.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 26, 2016)

Crick said:


> You don't actually "measure" an average Frank,  you calculate it.



How are average temperatures calculated?


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 26, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


The perpetual dumb act!
Anomalies were explained to you more than once plus you were given a link to NOAA's FAQ on anomalies. If you still know nothing about anomalies, and your question indicates you know less than nothing about anomalies, then you are too stupid to ever know anything about anomalies, or anything else for that matter.


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 26, 2016)

Crick said:


> You don't actually "measure" an average Frank,  you calculate it.


He knows that already, it was explained to him in detail already in this thread. He is just playing dumb so he can lie some more.


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 26, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > You don't actually "measure" an average Frank,  you calculate it.
> ...


That was also explained to you and a link was provided. If you are still too stupid to understand it, you will always be too stupid to understand it.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 26, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


and two years is considered climate and not weather.  Only in a warmers mind.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 26, 2016)

Pogo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > We've been in a 2 decade pause since then
> ...


was it warmer than 1997?  seems you missed that part of the OP.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 26, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


cause you have to have a movable target so you can adjust at will the temperature on a graph.

BTW, I'm really curious how they get a 67 degree anomaly?  Wow that is quite a number.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 26, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Outside temperature is 67F, after taking both the 30 year and 100 year baseline into account, the temperature is still 67F
> ...


explain how your baseline conclusion works here.  See I'm thinking to get a year average, one takes the 12 months of the year and finds the average for the year.  you got a different way to find the temperature?  wouldn't an anomaly only be like one or two degrees, not 67 degrees?  I'm sorry, but I think you fell off the plantation.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 26, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


but, but, was it a record temperature?  a record two days for that time of the year?  Got that at all?

Give me your city where that temperature was taken and I'll go look for historical temps for the two days in question. Want to make a bet it isn't historical at all, not close?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 26, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


so 67 is the anomaly?  wow that is a big anomaly don't you think?  We should be dead.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 26, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Warmers dont know the difference between a measurement and a baseline. *They mistakenly believe that the baseline alters the direct temperature measurement*.
> ...


oh....my .......gawd


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 26, 2016)

jc456 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


No, you are taking the post out of context. The anomaly calculated for CF's hypothetical 67F outside temp will be different depending on which baseline is used was what I was trying to explain to CF, not that the anomaly was 67F


edthecynic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Outside temperature is 67F, after taking both the 30 year and 100 year baseline into account, the temperature is still 67F
> ...


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 26, 2016)

jc456 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


The truth is shocking, isn't it!!!


----------



## jc456 (Sep 26, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


'exactly' button.  you got em?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 26, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


no, the average temperature is now an anomaly, I guess, I don't know, he's too confused to answer.


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 26, 2016)

jc456 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Never said it was a record, as you well know. I only said it was not the usual.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 26, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


it is, I'd be thinking that an anomaly would be in the vicinity of like one or two degrees off another baseline, but you get 67, dude why are we still here with your magic anomaly figure?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 26, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


well if it happened before than it isn't unusual.  so it would have to be historic.  damn you all don't get records or temperature statistics at all.  Anomaly is temperature based on a baseline that converts the temperature into an anomaly so the baseline becomes stranded by 30 years instead of 100 and then move the calendar to include the baseline moved from the global thermometer.  I guess.  something like that at all?


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 26, 2016)

jc456 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Already explained to you.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 26, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


you mean the way you use stupid?  yes it is, very shocking.


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 26, 2016)

jc456 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


No the usual is a lower temp. Having happened before means it is not unique, not happening often means it is unusual.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 26, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


nope, you would be confusing where 67 degrees falls within a 30 year average or a hundred year average as warm or cooler.  but you haven't figured that out just yet.  you think 67 is an anomaly figure.  LOMFL


----------



## jc456 (Sep 26, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


no, it is an average.  damn learn something already.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 26, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


'exactly' button.  It has to be what he's saying.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 26, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


btw, do you even know what unusual means?  I guess not.


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 26, 2016)

jc456 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Now you are just plain lying.


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 26, 2016)

jc456 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Obviously YOU don't!

*usual*

[yoo-zhoo-uh l, yoozh-wuh l] 

Synonyms
Examples
Word Origin
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
adjective
1.
habitual or customary:
her usual skill.
2.
commonly met with or observed in experience; ordinary:
the usual January weather.
3.
commonplace; everyday:
He says the usual things.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 26, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


why do you think all the thermometers need to be calibrated the same?  who cares?  they give a reading, it is added to a list of other thermometers and averaged by the number of thermometers, why is it important for them to all be the same?  How would anyone ever do that?  it's called average, you need to look up what that word means.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 26, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


dude, I read it here, your entire discussion with frank he asked you was temperature an anomaly or temperature and you said it was anomaly.  which then makes 67 an anomaly not a temperature.  see again, 67 degrees may be one or two degrees off the 30 year or 100 year average, but you keep stating it is the anomaly.  sorry bubba, you're your own worst enemy right now.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 26, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



But the "anomaly" has no effect whatsoever on the temperature, correct?


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 26, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


The outside temperature that you are reading on the thermometer, correct.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 26, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> 20th century average us 56.9.  The 1997 average was 62, that 5F warmer than average


'exactly' button again


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 26, 2016)

jc456 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


You are still lying.


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 26, 2016)

jc456 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > 20th century average us 56.9.  The 1997 average was 62, that 5F warmer than average
> ...


Not quite exactly, the 62F was using a 30 year 1961-1990 baseline.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 26, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


wow, you got that right.  so what is the anomaly figure 67 or one or two?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 26, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


ok, let's try this differently, what is the average temperature for the last 30 years?

What is the average temperature of 2015?  are they the same or different.  by how are they different?

That would be the anomaly. so which is it.  It can't be a number like 67 degrees. again, we'd be dead.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 26, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


dude, I still don't get your sentence.  what was 62F?  the average for the 30 years or the anomaly?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 26, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


so the anomaly is +2f not 67 right?  so the two gets added into the baseline spreadsheet, not the 67 right?


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 26, 2016)

jc456 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


CF never provided the imaginary 30 year data for his imaginary temp station that gave him his imaginary 67F.


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 26, 2016)

jc456 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


62.03F is NOAA's global baseline temperature using the 1961-1990 baseline.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 26, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


there it is again, how can and average be tied to a baseline.  You are suggesting that there is a baseline use in a calculation to get to 57.92f.  no, that isn't how it works.  and here I thought you were getting it.  OMG again.


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 26, 2016)

jc456 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


I naver said 67F was the anomaly, that is YOUR Straw Man.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 26, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


well if his imaginary temperature for 1997 was 62f why does it change because you have a baseline of either 30 or 100 years of data?  62f was the temperature.  now it might be higher or lower than the 30 or 100 year average, but there is no baseline of anything.  it is merely a difference between a data set contrived from a 30 year average or a 100 year average.  that's it.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 26, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


you just said it again using 57.92f for 1997.  dude you're writing it wrong.  and you haven't provided what you even mean yet.  the average for 1997 was 62f .  THAT NUMBER DOESN'T ever, ever change.  do you understand that?

now if the imaginary average over thirty years was 57.92f and the 100 year average was 58.62f, then 62f is still warmer than both average sets.  Do you understand that yet?


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 26, 2016)

jc456 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Because it is a GLOBAL temperature. Try to pay attention.
Remember you already admitted that there is no such thing as a global thermometer, so global temp is always an average tied to a baseline.


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 26, 2016)

jc456 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


You still have no ides what your are saying.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 26, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


there you go again, no, no it is not a baseline temperature.  It was the temperature for 1997.  why is it a baseline for you?


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 26, 2016)

jc456 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


No the temperature for 1997 was 62.45F, .42F above the baseline temp of 62.03F.

Global Analysis - Annual 1997 | State of the Climate |  National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)


----------



## jc456 (Sep 26, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


sure there is a global thermometer, it is the 2000 stations averaged.  The satellites do a really good job of acting as that global thermometer btw.  So again, if 1997 was averaged to 62f, it will always be 62f correct?  that temperature might be higher or lower than a 30 or 100 year average correct?  but it is still 62f.  right?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 26, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


baseline temp of what?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 26, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


what was the 57.92 and 58.62f temps from then?


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 26, 2016)

jc456 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


GLOBAL average temperature


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 26, 2016)

jc456 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


The 20th century baseline, the 62.03F and 62.45 were from the 1961-1990 baseline.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 26, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


dude, simple, what was the average temperature for 1961 to 1990?


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 26, 2016)

jc456 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Already posted, the NOAA global average temp for baseline 1961-1990 was 62.03F.
The OP cited NOAA data.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 26, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> That's odd, they keep talking about a baseline but they don't seem to know what it means


now that's the first sentence with the word baseline I actually understand in this discussion thread.  holy crap, don't they know that 1961 to 1990 is an average for a thirty year period.  How is that a fking baseline to something? it is merely an average temperature.  Period.  If one wishes to compare to that temperature, than the anomaly is the difference between the two averages.  period.  nothing touches anything, doesn't change anything, doesn't mean a temperature becomes an anomaly.  WTF is in these people's koolaid?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 26, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


and what was the average temperature for 1997?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 26, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


what were the 57.92 and 58.62f figures then?


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 26, 2016)

jc456 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > That's odd, they keep talking about a baseline but they don't seem to know what it means
> ...


Read and learn something.
BTW, these were already posted, so either you were too lazy and uncurious to click on then or too stupid to understand them.

Global Surface Temperature Anomalies | Monitoring References |  National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

Explainer: How do scientists measure global temperature? | Carbon Brief


----------



## jc456 (Sep 26, 2016)

cnm said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > How was the 1997* average* temperature derived?
> ...


OMG is this flipping hilarious.  this is like a 'who's on first' with you stoops.


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 26, 2016)

jc456 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


62.45F using the 1961-1990 baseline.


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 26, 2016)

jc456 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Using the 20th century baseline.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 26, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



"The average global temperature across land surfaces was 1.29°C (2.32°F) above the 20th century average of 13.8°C (56.9°F)..."

Global Analysis - August 2016 | State of the Climate |  National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

Pick a baseline, any baseline


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 26, 2016)

jc456 said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


The voice of ignorance!


----------



## jc456 (Sep 26, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


you need a link to explain how temperatures get averaged?  do you even understand averaging?


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 26, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 26, 2016)

jc456 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Already posted twice!

For the third time:
Explainer: How do scientists measure global temperature? | Carbon Brief


----------



## jc456 (Sep 26, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


for when?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 26, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


huh? you said the 1961 to 1990 average was 62.03, so now it's the 20th century 100 year average?  what the fk are you trying to say here.  It makes absolutely no sense.


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 26, 2016)

jc456 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


NOAA's 1961-1990 baseline


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 26, 2016)

"The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for August 2016 was the highest for August in the 137-year period of record, marking the 16th consecutive month of record warmth for the globe. The August 2016 temperature departure of 0.92°C (1.66°F) above the 20th century average of 15.6°C (60.1°F)..."

Global Analysis - August 2016 | State of the Climate |  National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

Yet another "baseline" from the same report, this one includes ocean surface, and had an average that is 3F warmer than land alone.  Any guesses how they arrive at ocean temperatures back in 1920?  How much warmer do the oceans have to be to raise the average by 3F?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 26, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


dude, they explain it ok, look at their chart, it shows the pause.  not sure what you're referencing with your baseline chatter.  you're nuts.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 26, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


which was what average temperature?


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 26, 2016)

jc456 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


NOAA stopped using the 1961-1990 baseline in 1997. The current baseline is the 20th century baseline. CF dishonestly used the 1961-1990 baseline for 1997 and compared it to the 20th century baseline for 2015.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 26, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...








Pick a baseline.

23 pages and you haven't explained how a baseline can affect a measured average temperature


----------



## jc456 (Sep 26, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


isn't 56.9 lower than 62.45?  so 1997 was warmer by ~6 degrees F.  now what was 2015's average temperature?  did he give that yet?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 26, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


ok so that average temperature is what? 56.92F?


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 26, 2016)

jc456 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Only if you look at it like this:


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 26, 2016)

jc456 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Now you are as dishonest as CF, using 2 different baselines.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 26, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


well the pause is for 20 years, so yeah, like that, you won't see any increase in temperatures since 1997.  it's been what this entire 24 pages is about.  pause. not hottest year evah shit.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 26, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


what does that even mean?  I used no baselines for anything.  I've been asking you to explain what the 20th century average temperature is.  What is it? just the average temp. can you answer that?


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 26, 2016)

jc456 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


No, the NOAA 20th century global baseline is 57.F. The 57.92F was 1997 using the 20th century baseline and 58.62F was 2015 using the SAME baseline.

Global Analysis - Annual 2015 | State of the Climate |  National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

the average global temperature across land and ocean surface areas for 2015 was 0.90°C (1.62°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F)

The annual temperature anomalies for 1997 and 1998 were 0.51°C (0.92°F) and 0.63°C (1.13°F), respectively, above the 20th century average


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 26, 2016)

jc456 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Then how can there be so many new global highs over the last 20 years?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 26, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


huh?  what the fk are you saying?  what was the 20th century average temperature period.  you have that?

BTW, what was the average temperature for 2015?  got that?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 26, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


that means absolutely nothing.  what is the average temperatures, I'd like to know where they base their anomaly from.  so give me that baseline figure, the 20th century average temperature.  i will then compare the 2015 average temperature and get the anomaly myself, got it?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 26, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...




How accurate were temperature back in 1880?  And now you're back to using that as a baseline???


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 26, 2016)

jc456 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



It depends on what baseline he's using


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 26, 2016)

jc456 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


56.9 is the 1997 temp using the 20th century baseline, and 62.45 is the 1997 temp using the 1961-1990 baseline, so in face, you are using 2 different baselines.


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 26, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


1880 is the 19th century!!! DUH!!!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 26, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



How accurate were the ocean temperatures back in 1880?  The shorter baselines adds in an entire new data set: Ocean temperature in order to invent their "HOTTEST TEMPS EVAH!!!!" fictional narrative


----------



## jc456 (Sep 26, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


no the average temperature for 1997 was 62.4F.  not using any baseline for anything.  Why do you keep using baseline figures for 1997?  It had an average temperature period.  it was 62.4F.  if the 20th century average temps was 56.9 then the anomaly/ difference is ~6 degree F.  that's it.  nothing gets converted or changed or anything.  the anomaly is ~6. got it.

Oh, and it is part of the 20th century average temperature set. So it basically cyclical.  doesn't seem right to that.  hmmmmmmmm. phony is as phony does.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 26, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


frank, I have no idea what math class this guy took, but wow, I'm laughing very hard at this junk he's been posting.  baseline, what does it mean again?  Oh yeah, never been explained.


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 26, 2016)

jc456 said:


> *no the average temperature for 1997 was 62.4F. not using any baseline for anything. *Why do you keep using baseline figures for 1997? It had an average temperature period. it was 62.4F. if the 20th century average temps was 56.9 then the anomaly/ difference is ~6 degree F. that's it. nothing gets converted or changed or anything. the anomaly is ~6. got it.


Even CF hasn't tried that lie!!!

From CF's OP graphic:

The global average temperature of 62.45 degrees Fahrenheit for 1997 was the warmest year on record, surpassing the previous record set in 1995 by 0.15 degrees Fahrenheit. *The chart reflects variations from the 30-year average (1961-1990) of the combined land and sea surface temperatures.*


----------



## jc456 (Sep 26, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > *no the average temperature for 1997 was 62.4F. not using any baseline for anything. *Why do you keep using baseline figures for 1997? It had an average temperature period. it was 62.4F. if the 20th century average temps was 56.9 then the anomaly/ difference is ~6 degree F. that's it. nothing gets converted or changed or anything. the anomaly is ~6. got it.
> ...


and, I'm not stating anything different.  you keep changing the 1997 average.  you made it three different figures so far. All he and I are trying to show you is that 1997 average temp is 62.4.  and that will never change.  EVAH

BTW, do you understand that the average temperature for 1995 was 62.30F right?


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 26, 2016)

jc456 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Now you are back to playing dumb so you can keep on lying.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 26, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


dude, stop flopping around.  do you are do you not agree that the average temperature for 1997 was 62.45 F? I'll start there.


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 26, 2016)

jc456 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


It is you flopping around because you got caught lying about the 1997 global temp "not using any baseline for anything."


----------



## jc456 (Sep 26, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


what again does that mean? what is the definition of baseline?  there is no baseline required to calculate a 12 month average temperature.  why do you think there is?  see 1997 62.45F average temperature.  12 months of temps divided by 12.  and we have an average.  wow would you take a fken look at that?

BTW, 30 year average is 360 months of temps divided by 360 and again, would you take a fkn look, an average temp.  now is that average value different than 1997?  again, referencing 1997 to the 30 year average.  baseline merely means month start to month end of the 360 months.  that's it.  so can you please learn something for us?


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 26, 2016)

jc456 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


As has been already explained to you, and you said you understand the link provided 3 times that explains how global temps are measured. Were you lying then or are you lying now?

Explainer: How do scientists measure global temperature? | Carbon Brief

*The basics*
To get a complete picture of Earth’s temperature, scientists combine measurements from the air above land and the ocean surface collected by ships, buoys and sometimes satellites, too.

The temperature at each land and ocean station is compared daily to what is ‘normal’ for that location and time, typically the long-term average over a 30-year period. The differences are called an ‘anomalies’ and they help scientists evaluate how temperature is changing over time.

A ‘positive’ anomaly means the temperature is warmer than the long-term average, a ‘negative’ anomaly means it’s cooler.

*Daily anomalies are averaged together over a whole month. These are, in turn, used to work out temperature anomalies from season-to-season and year-to-year.*

After working out the annual temperature anomalies for each land or ocean station, the next job for scientists is to divide the earth up into grid boxes.

They work out the average temperature for each box by combining data from all the available stations. The smaller the grid boxes, the better the average temperature of the box will reflect the actual temperature at any given point, leading to a more accurate estimate global temperature when you add them all together.

By combining the grid boxes, scientists work out average temperatures for the northern and southern hemispheres. How much each box contributes to the global temperature is adjusted to account for the fact that the degree of longitude is bigger at the equator than at the poles. Together, the hemispheric values provide an estimate of global average temperature.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 26, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


And? each daily value is a temperature set.  and the anomaly is the difference between the temperature averaged over a 30 year period.  So for 1997 the average temperature was 62.45F.  agree or not?


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 26, 2016)

jc456 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Only when using the 30 year 1961-1990 global baseline. When using the 100 year 20th century global baseline the 1997 average global temperature is 57.92F.
Using either baseline 2015 was warmer than 1997. The only way to make 1997 "warmer" than 2015 is to dishonestly use a different baseline for each year.

Here is a chart using the 1961-1990 baseline for both years.





_Global annual average temperatures anomalies (relative to 1961-1990) based on an average of three global temperature data sets (HadCRUT.4.4.0.0, GISTEMP and NOAAGlobalTemp) from 1950 to 2015._


----------



## jc456 (Sep 26, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


----------



## Crick (Sep 27, 2016)

jc456 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



The el Nino of 97-98 caused a significant spike in global air and land temperatures and was followed by a lengthy la Nina event.  Since then however, temperatures have continued to rise.  2005 was hotter than 1998, 2010 was hotter than 2005, 2015 was hotter than 2010 and 2016 is very likely to be hotter still.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 4, 2016)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


well the deal is the question that I asked, and you didn't come near answering it.  Was the temperature 62.45F in 1997 or not?  Who cares why it was that temperature.

What is hilarious is you all pronounced that 2015 to 2016 was another el nino.  So why wouldn't the temps have gone up?  I don't know, you all just can't quite grasp how to discuss global warming.

So to summarize, the two hottest years were due to el nino and not CO2.  just so you have that piece of information from this discussion.


----------



## Crick (Oct 5, 2016)

Crick said:


> The el Nino of 97-98 caused a significant spike in global air and land temperatures and was followed by a lengthy la Nina event.  Since then however, temperatures have continued to rise.  2005 was hotter than 1998, 2010 was hotter than 2005, 2015 was hotter than 2010 and 2016 is very likely to be hotter still.





jc456 said:


> well the deal is the question that I asked, and you didn't come near answering it.  Was the temperature 62.45F in 1997 or not?  Who cares why it was that temperature.
> 
> What is hilarious is you all pronounced that 2015 to 2016 was another el nino.  So why wouldn't the temps have gone up?  I don't know, you all just can't quite grasp how to discuss global warming.
> 
> So to summarize, the two hottest years were due to el nino and not CO2.  just so you have that piece of information from this discussion.








Or this one - a little easier to see where 97 and 98 fall


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 5, 2016)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > The el Nino of 97-98 caused a significant spike in global air and land temperatures and was followed by a lengthy la Nina event.  Since then however, temperatures have continued to rise.  2005 was hotter than 1998, 2010 was hotter than 2005, 2015 was hotter than 2010 and 2016 is very likely to be hotter still.
> ...



BS Graph that lowered 97 by 5F and uses the "deep ocean" warming to make up most of the "warming" from  2012-2015


----------



## jc456 (Oct 5, 2016)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > The el Nino of 97-98 caused a significant spike in global air and land temperatures and was followed by a lengthy la Nina event.  Since then however, temperatures have continued to rise.  2005 was hotter than 1998, 2010 was hotter than 2005, 2015 was hotter than 2010 and 2016 is very likely to be hotter still.
> ...


I love it.  dude, I don't trust any graph you post.  Everything to date that you've ever posted is adjusted crap.  I asked a really simple question, which again you avoided answering.  So you have no answer.  just pretty little home made graphs of someone's opinion of what happened in the world.


----------



## Crick (Oct 6, 2016)

That was easy then, wasn't it.  Precisely like the kid with his eyes clenched shut, fists in his ears chanting "nanny nanny nanny nanny nanny nanny..."


----------

