2014 On Track To Be Hottest Year On Record

[RollingThunder]

Another cartoon brained moron posts more braindead drivel after his denier cult bullshit got debunked.

 

[Vigilante]

Another cartoon brained moron posts more braindead drivel after his denier cult bullshit got debunked.

I do believe I bitched slapped the knuckledragger, and hurt his feelings!

 

[RollingThunder]

Another cartoon brained moron posts more braindead drivel after his denier cult bullshit got debunked.

I do believe I bitched slapped the knuckledragger, and hurt his feelings!

Nope. You just once again demonstrated what a complete retard you are. As usual.

 

[RollingThunder]

Old Moron just cant get his facts straight.. We are no where near a warm record...

You freaking idiot! We're talking about 2014 being the warmest year on record GLOBALLY!!! The USA only covers about 2% of the Earth's surface.

Grow a brain, retard.

Post the data, so we can see the facts.

We all know you're too retarded to understand scientific data anyway, but here you go....you're on your own from here, bozo....
THE U.S. HISTORICAL CLIMATOLOGY NETWORK MONTHLY TEMPERATURE DATA

 

[Vigilante]

Another cartoon brained moron posts more braindead drivel after his denier cult bullshit got debunked.

I do believe I bitched slapped the knuckledragger, and hurt his feelings!

Nope. You just once again demonstrated what a complete retard you are. As usual.

Yup, a confirmed BITCH SLAP!

 

[RollingThunder]

Another cartoon brained moron posts more braindead drivel after his denier cult bullshit got debunked.

I do believe I bitched slapped the knuckledragger, and hurt his feelings!

Nope. You just once again demonstrated what a complete retard you are. As usual.

Yup, a confirmed BITCH SLAP!

Yeah, but to your own face, you poor retard.

 

[Vigilante]

Another cartoon brained moron posts more braindead drivel after his denier cult bullshit got debunked.

I do believe I bitched slapped the knuckledragger, and hurt his feelings!

Nope. You just once again demonstrated what a complete retard you are. As usual.

Yup, a confirmed BITCH SLAP!

Yeah, but to your own face, you poor retard.

A SECOND confirmation of the BITCH SLAP...must have been harder than I thought!

 

[elektra]

We all know you're too retarded to understand scientific data anyway, but here you go....you're on your own from here, bozo....
THE U.S. HISTORICAL CLIMATOLOGY NETWORK MONTHLY TEMPERATURE DATA

From your link, RollingBlunder;
Not sure why you would give me all this great stuff when I simply asked for the temperature, but I guess I was wrong, RollingBlunder was being sarcastic and actually of the view, that the OP is the propaganda.

Thanks for clarifying things, RollingBlunder, and I know, your reply will be that I, "cherry picked", well you did give me a, "Cherry tree", with lots of low hanging fruit, and I barely began to pick, there is much more to quote.
THE U.S. HISTORICAL CLIMATOLOGY NETWORK MONTHLY TEMPERATURE DATA

To that end, U.S. HCN temperature records have been “corrected”

The HCN bias adjustments are discussed in the context of their effect on U.S. temperature trends and in terms of the differences between version 2 and its widely used predecessor (now termed HCN version 1).

The actual subset of stations constituting the HCN has changed twice since 1987. By the mid-1990s, sta- tion closures and relocations had already forced a reevaluation of the composition of the U.S. HCN as well as the creation of additional composite stations. The reevaluation led to 52 station deletions and 54 additions,

Each source contains “estimated” values and quality assurance (QA) flags;

The process of removing systematic changes in the bias of a climate series is called homogenization, and the systematic artificial shifts in a series are frequently referred to as “inhomogeneities.” In the HCN, there are a number of causes behind inhomogeneities

Bias caused by changes to the time of observation. The majority of the COOP Network observers (and also HCN) are volunteers who make observations at times that are more convenient than local midnight

the gradual conversion to morning observation times in the United States during the past 50 years has artificially reduced the true tem- perature trend in the U.S. climate record

To account for this time of observation bias (TOB) in the HCN version 2 monthly temperatures, the adjustment method described in Karl et al. (1986) was used.

homogenized data are not
useful for calculating regional trends because the
homogenized series lack independence,

comparing only HCN series, in large part because digital monthly COOP temperature data (and metadata) were more limited back in the 1980s

station changes can cause either an artificial rise or drop in temperature

. As a result, the overall effect of the MMTS instrument change at all affected sites is substantially less than both the Quayle et al. (1991) and Hubbard and Lin (2006) estimates

For HCN version 2 as a whole, the combined effect of all adjustments for documented and undocumented temperature changes is to increase the average U.S. trend in maximum temperatures

the most significant effect of the adjustments on maximum temperatures begins after 1985,

 

[elektra]

The Science is settled?

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Billy_Bob]

We all know you're too retarded to understand scientific data anyway, but here you go....you're on your own from here, bozo....
THE U.S. HISTORICAL CLIMATOLOGY NETWORK MONTHLY TEMPERATURE DATA

Proof positive that YOU are a clueless moron..

The data sets are in the Woodfortrees data base and are linked to the original source. You post a link that has no basis in reality as the link takes you to ADJUSTED TEMPERATURES and omits that the unadjusted numbers are available for comparison. When your side is done knuckledraging the temps around why would they not be 3-5 deg F warmer... Ever upward... you never bring them down to aline with well sited stations and reality. You always run up the temps to meet poorly sited stations and your agenda..

You really dont have a damn clue... just posting over and over the same talking points and trash...

 

[PoliticalChic]

LOLOL.....yeah, I see you stooging for the corps like the brainwashed moron you are, and I see the author and the publishers of that idiotic twaddle you posted also stooging for the corporate anti-environmental, anti-regulatory agenda.

I asked you a question...."thousands of activist members of advocacy groups are employed by federal agencies in positions that give them opportunity to exercise agenda-driven “undue influence” over goods-production decisions applied in rural areas." See any ".... corporate stooges ...." in there, you dunce?

LOLOL......I already answered your question, stooge.

No, you dodged the question because it skewers you.

 

[jc456]

LOLOL.....yeah, I see you stooging for the corps like the brainwashed moron you are, and I see the author and the publishers of that idiotic twaddle you posted also stooging for the corporate anti-environmental, anti-regulatory agenda.

I asked you a question...."thousands of activist members of advocacy groups are employed by federal agencies in positions that give them opportunity to exercise agenda-driven “undue influence” over goods-production decisions applied in rural areas." See any ".... corporate stooges ...." in there, you dunce?

LOLOL......I already answered your question, stooge.

wrong!!!!!

 

[jc456]

"thousands of activist members of advocacy groups are employed by federal agencies in positions that give them opportunity to exercise agenda-driven “undue influence” over goods-production decisions applied in rural areas."

Here's a question for you: what percentage of ALL government employees do you believe have the capacity to exercise ANY influence, agenda-driven or not; undue or not? 1 in 10? 1 in 100? The government is filled with hundreds of thousands of clerical worker bees and very, very, very few queens. If you believe otherwise, you're either ignorant or paranoid.

what a boob. You don't know how authority works do you?

 

[jc456]

Rollingblunder again fails to post the facts.

You again fail to show any signs of intelligence.

where are the temperature data sets

 

[jc456]

January 2014 one of the coldest on record

Summer 2014 is the coldest in a decade New York Post

NOAA Winter 2013-2014 Among Coldest on Record in Midwest Driest Warmest in Southwest - weather.com

Global Warming Alert 2014 coldest year on record Poor Richard s News

How's a person to know who is telling the truth?

How to know a complete idiot. He posts about his back yard when we are talking global issues.

yep, it's part of the globe if you haven't looked lately. LoSiNg!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Another cartoon brained moron posts more braindead drivel after his denier cult bullshit got debunked.

And still no data sets. hmmm..LoSiNg

 

[RollingThunder]

The Science is settled?

Even though scientific understanding is always being refined and expanded, the basic facts about what is happening now with the Earth's warming and climate changes are well understood by the scientists, so yes, in that regard, the "science IS settled"......far, far beyond your retarded comprehension, I'm afraid.

WHAT 95% CERTAINTY OF WARMING MEANS TO SCIENTISTS
Associated Press
By SETH BORENSTEIN
Sep. 24, 2013
(excerpts)
Top scientists from a variety of fields say they are about as certain that global warming is a real, man-made threat as they are that cigarettes kill. They are as sure about climate change as they are about the age of the universe. They say they are more certain about climate change than they are that vitamins make you healthy or that dioxin in Superfund sites is dangerous. They'll even put a number on how certain they are about climate change. But that number isn't 100 percent. It's 95 percent. And for some non-scientists, that's just not good enough. There's a mismatch between what scientists say about how certain they are and what the general public thinks the experts mean, specialists say. That is an issue because this week, scientists from around the world have gathered in Stockholm for a meeting of a U.N. panel on climate change, and they will probably release a report saying it is "extremely likely" — which they define in footnotes as 95 percent certain — that humans are mostly to blame for temperatures that have climbed since 1951. One climate scientist involved says the panel may even boost it in some places to "virtually certain" and 99 percent.

Some climate-change deniers have looked at 95 percent and scoffed. After all, most people wouldn't get on a plane that had only a 95 percent certainty of landing safely, risk experts say. But in science, 95 percent certainty is often considered the gold standard for certainty. "Uncertainty is inherent in every scientific judgment," said Johns Hopkins University epidemiologist Thomas Burke. "Will the sun come up in the morning?" Scientists know the answer is yes, but they can't really say so with 100 percent certainty because there are so many factors out there that are not quite understood or under control. George Gray, director of the Center for Risk Science and Public Health at George Washington University, said that demanding absolute proof on things such as climate doesn't make sense. "There's a group of people who seem to think that when scientists say they are uncertain, we shouldn't do anything," said Gray, who was chief scientist for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency during the George W. Bush administration. "That's crazy. We're uncertain and we buy insurance."

With the U.N. panel about to weigh in on the effects of greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of oil, coal and gas, The Associated Press asked scientists who specialize in climate, physics, epidemiology, public health, statistics and risk just what in science is more certain than human-caused climate change, what is about the same, and what is less. They said gravity is a good example of something more certain than climate change. Climate change "is not as sure as if you drop a stone it will hit the Earth," Princeton University climate scientist Michael Oppenheimer said. "It's not as certain, but it's close." Arizona State University physicist Lawrence Krauss said the 95 percent quoted for climate change is equivalent to the current certainty among physicists that the universe is 13.8 billion years old. The president of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences, Ralph Cicerone, and more than a dozen other scientists contacted by the AP said the 95 percent certainty regarding climate change is most similar to the confidence scientists have in the decades' worth of evidence that cigarettes are deadly. Jeff Severinghaus, a geoscientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, said that through the use of radioactive isotopes, scientists are more than 99 percent sure that much of the carbon in the air has human fingerprints on it. And because of basic physics, scientists are 99 percent certain that carbon traps heat in what is called the greenhouse effect.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Science is settled?

Even though scientific understanding is always being refined and expanded, the basic facts about what is happening now with the Earth's warming and climate changes are well understood by the scientists, so yes, in that regard, the "science IS settled"......far, far beyond your retarded comprehension, I'm afraid.

WHAT 95% CERTAINTY OF WARMING MEANS TO SCIENTISTS
Associated Press
By SETH BORENSTEIN
Sep. 24, 2013
(excerpts)
Top scientists from a variety of fields say they are about as certain that global warming is a real, man-made threat as they are that cigarettes kill. They are as sure about climate change as they are about the age of the universe. They say they are more certain about climate change than they are that vitamins make you healthy or that dioxin in Superfund sites is dangerous. They'll even put a number on how certain they are about climate change. But that number isn't 100 percent. It's 95 percent. And for some non-scientists, that's just not good enough. There's a mismatch between what scientists say about how certain they are and what the general public thinks the experts mean, specialists say. That is an issue because this week, scientists from around the world have gathered in Stockholm for a meeting of a U.N. panel on climate change, and they will probably release a report saying it is "extremely likely" — which they define in footnotes as 95 percent certain — that humans are mostly to blame for temperatures that have climbed since 1951. One climate scientist involved says the panel may even boost it in some places to "virtually certain" and 99 percent.

Some climate-change deniers have looked at 95 percent and scoffed. After all, most people wouldn't get on a plane that had only a 95 percent certainty of landing safely, risk experts say. But in science, 95 percent certainty is often considered the gold standard for certainty. "Uncertainty is inherent in every scientific judgment," said Johns Hopkins University epidemiologist Thomas Burke. "Will the sun come up in the morning?" Scientists know the answer is yes, but they can't really say so with 100 percent certainty because there are so many factors out there that are not quite understood or under control. George Gray, director of the Center for Risk Science and Public Health at George Washington University, said that demanding absolute proof on things such as climate doesn't make sense. "There's a group of people who seem to think that when scientists say they are uncertain, we shouldn't do anything," said Gray, who was chief scientist for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency during the George W. Bush administration. "That's crazy. We're uncertain and we buy insurance."

With the U.N. panel about to weigh in on the effects of greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of oil, coal and gas, The Associated Press asked scientists who specialize in climate, physics, epidemiology, public health, statistics and risk just what in science is more certain than human-caused climate change, what is about the same, and what is less. They said gravity is a good example of something more certain than climate change. Climate change "is not as sure as if you drop a stone it will hit the Earth," Princeton University climate scientist Michael Oppenheimer said. "It's not as certain, but it's close." Arizona State University physicist Lawrence Krauss said the 95 percent quoted for climate change is equivalent to the current certainty among physicists that the universe is 13.8 billion years old. The president of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences, Ralph Cicerone, and more than a dozen other scientists contacted by the AP said the 95 percent certainty regarding climate change is most similar to the confidence scientists have in the decades' worth of evidence that cigarettes are deadly. Jeff Severinghaus, a geoscientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, said that through the use of radioactive isotopes, scientists are more than 99 percent sure that much of the carbon in the air has human fingerprints on it. And because of basic physics, scientists are 99 percent certain that carbon traps heat in what is called the greenhouse effect.

So....if the science is so well recognized....why the need to censor any opposing voices?

1. 1. “The Royal Society of England wrote directly to sympathetic science journalists and asked them not to cover opposing claims about climate change. It was false to even mention skeptics; the science was settled.” .Berezow and Campbell, “Science Left Behind,” p.198
   2. “…Royal Society,… writes: "We are appealing to all parts of the UK media to be vigilant against attempts to present a distorted view of the scientific evidence about climate change and its potential effects on people and their environments around the world. I hope that we can count on your support." Collins, the UK Telegraph, was shocked…and wrote of the ‘sceptics:’ These people are not nutcases, nor are they in thrall to the oil companies (even if they were, does anyone seriously believe that Big Oil wants to destroy the planet?). They are just as capable of doing serious science as those who take it as an article of faith that global warming is all our fault. .Global warming generates hot air - Telegraph
   3. So…this is the state of things. Do not doubt, politics is more real than what is called ‘science,’ today.

 

[elektra]

We all know you're too retarded to understand scientific data anyway, but here you go....you're on your own from here, bozo....
THE U.S. HISTORICAL CLIMATOLOGY NETWORK MONTHLY TEMPERATURE DATA

From your link, RollingBlunder;
Not sure why you would give me all this great stuff when I simply asked for the temperature, but I guess I was wrong, RollingBlunder was being sarcastic and actually of the view, that the OP is the propaganda.

Thanks for clarifying things, RollingBlunder, and I know, your reply will be that I, "cherry picked", well you did give me a, "Cherry tree", with lots of low hanging fruit, and I barely began to pick, there is much more to quote.
THE U.S. HISTORICAL CLIMATOLOGY NETWORK MONTHLY TEMPERATURE DATA

To that end, U.S. HCN temperature records have been “corrected”

The HCN bias adjustments are discussed in the context of their effect on U.S. temperature trends and in terms of the differences between version 2 and its widely used predecessor (now termed HCN version 1).

The actual subset of stations constituting the HCN has changed twice since 1987. By the mid-1990s, sta- tion closures and relocations had already forced a reevaluation of the composition of the U.S. HCN as well as the creation of additional composite stations. The reevaluation led to 52 station deletions and 54 additions,

Each source contains “estimated” values and quality assurance (QA) flags;

The process of removing systematic changes in the bias of a climate series is called homogenization, and the systematic artificial shifts in a series are frequently referred to as “inhomogeneities.” In the HCN, there are a number of causes behind inhomogeneities

Bias caused by changes to the time of observation. The majority of the COOP Network observers (and also HCN) are volunteers who make observations at times that are more convenient than local midnight

the gradual conversion to morning observation times in the United States during the past 50 years has artificially reduced the true tem- perature trend in the U.S. climate record

To account for this time of observation bias (TOB) in the HCN version 2 monthly temperatures, the adjustment method described in Karl et al. (1986) was used.

homogenized data are not
useful for calculating regional trends because the
homogenized series lack independence,

comparing only HCN series, in large part because digital monthly COOP temperature data (and metadata) were more limited back in the 1980s

station changes can cause either an artificial rise or drop in temperature

. As a result, the overall effect of the MMTS instrument change at all affected sites is substantially less than both the Quayle et al. (1991) and Hubbard and Lin (2006) estimates

For HCN version 2 as a whole, the combined effect of all adjustments for documented and undocumented temperature changes is to increase the average U.S. trend in maximum temperatures

the most significant effect of the adjustments on maximum temperatures begins after 1985,

Thanks for the link RollingBlunder.

The claim that august is hotter than its been in a hundred years is anything but a fact. As the link rollingblunder provided, states.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The Science is settled?

Even though scientific understanding is always being refined and expanded, the basic facts about what is happening now with the Earth's warming and climate changes are well understood by the scientists, so yes, in that regard, the "science IS settled"......far, far beyond your retarded comprehension, I'm afraid.

WHAT 95% CERTAINTY OF WARMING MEANS TO SCIENTISTS
Associated Press
By SETH BORENSTEIN
Sep. 24, 2013
(excerpts)
Top scientists from a variety of fields say they are about as certain that global warming is a real, man-made threat as they are that cigarettes kill. They are as sure about climate change as they are about the age of the universe. They say they are more certain about climate change than they are that vitamins make you healthy or that dioxin in Superfund sites is dangerous. They'll even put a number on how certain they are about climate change. But that number isn't 100 percent. It's 95 percent. And for some non-scientists, that's just not good enough. There's a mismatch between what scientists say about how certain they are and what the general public thinks the experts mean, specialists say. That is an issue because this week, scientists from around the world have gathered in Stockholm for a meeting of a U.N. panel on climate change, and they will probably release a report saying it is "extremely likely" — which they define in footnotes as 95 percent certain — that humans are mostly to blame for temperatures that have climbed since 1951. One climate scientist involved says the panel may even boost it in some places to "virtually certain" and 99 percent.

Some climate-change deniers have looked at 95 percent and scoffed. After all, most people wouldn't get on a plane that had only a 95 percent certainty of landing safely, risk experts say. But in science, 95 percent certainty is often considered the gold standard for certainty. "Uncertainty is inherent in every scientific judgment," said Johns Hopkins University epidemiologist Thomas Burke. "Will the sun come up in the morning?" Scientists know the answer is yes, but they can't really say so with 100 percent certainty because there are so many factors out there that are not quite understood or under control. George Gray, director of the Center for Risk Science and Public Health at George Washington University, said that demanding absolute proof on things such as climate doesn't make sense. "There's a group of people who seem to think that when scientists say they are uncertain, we shouldn't do anything," said Gray, who was chief scientist for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency during the George W. Bush administration. "That's crazy. We're uncertain and we buy insurance."

With the U.N. panel about to weigh in on the effects of greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of oil, coal and gas, The Associated Press asked scientists who specialize in climate, physics, epidemiology, public health, statistics and risk just what in science is more certain than human-caused climate change, what is about the same, and what is less. They said gravity is a good example of something more certain than climate change. Climate change "is not as sure as if you drop a stone it will hit the Earth," Princeton University climate scientist Michael Oppenheimer said. "It's not as certain, but it's close." Arizona State University physicist Lawrence Krauss said the 95 percent quoted for climate change is equivalent to the current certainty among physicists that the universe is 13.8 billion years old. The president of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences, Ralph Cicerone, and more than a dozen other scientists contacted by the AP said the 95 percent certainty regarding climate change is most similar to the confidence scientists have in the decades' worth of evidence that cigarettes are deadly. Jeff Severinghaus, a geoscientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, said that through the use of radioactive isotopes, scientists are more than 99 percent sure that much of the carbon in the air has human fingerprints on it. And because of basic physics, scientists are 99 percent certain that carbon traps heat in what is called the greenhouse effect.

Some climate-change deniers have looked at 95 percent and scoffed.

Well, garbage in....garbage out.