Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You're one of those.. *sigh*No, temperatures have increased.There WAS severe monkey biz pissed on that chart. Anyone that can drive MS Office can tell how to scale graphs and pad them to accentuate or attenuate features of the data. Putting an irrelevent 100 years of past temperature on the left side in the final version made the errors look smaller by a factor of five. No conspiracy.. 30+ years of science and engineering tells me that.. And THEN -- cutting off the projections to go ONLY to 2015 instead of continuing them out as ORIGINALLY PRESENTED -- was done for spite and to avoid major embarrassment. If ya WANT --- I'll show you the originals and put those actual temps on top of it.. But if you're really in science -- you would already KNOW how to lie with graphs and statistics.. Or defend yourself against those that play to lie with graphs and statistics..
If you think that the very tops of those errors hitting SOME of the projected region is a true wonder and success -- you need to realize that the temp. data ends in 2010 (?) when the report came out. And since then --- the temps have walked off of ALL of those estimates..
This is nonsensical. The data and ranges clearly fall in the ranges that were predicted, aside from a few outlier years, which is to be expected in the short run.
Temps have generally been higher since 2010, so we can be sure that most of those years will be well into the predicted range.
All in all, an excellent graph.
See, only people who can't interpret data think that the look of the graph matters. The data is the data, and that data shows remarkable correlation between predicted ranges and observed temps.
No they haven't. Temp levels have flatlined for the last 18 years. Only through the magic of computer derived science fiction do climatologists come up with fanciful tales of .38 degree rises in temperature. A number that is not measurable in the real world.
You must be referring to the RSS satellite data set, the one that cuts off the upper latitudes and southern latitudes and measures the upper troposphere rather than the surface.
But you don't know the difference or care, because deniers tell you it's not warming.
Scientists who study this are pretty clear.
Bullshit. The amount of increase that is claimed is so slight that it is impossible for the tools we have to measure that fine. Period. The only way they can come up with those silly reports is to massage the raw data through their computers and voila! They have whatever bullshit number they want. But the numbers are still that...bullshit. Not born out by fact.
I'm a self proclaimed genius as well, want a cookie? *Yawn* The computer model conspiracy bullshit, I'll trust the majority of scientists, the UN, etc..You're one of those.. *sigh*No, temperatures have increased.This is nonsensical. The data and ranges clearly fall in the ranges that were predicted, aside from a few outlier years, which is to be expected in the short run.
Temps have generally been higher since 2010, so we can be sure that most of those years will be well into the predicted range.
All in all, an excellent graph.
See, only people who can't interpret data think that the look of the graph matters. The data is the data, and that data shows remarkable correlation between predicted ranges and observed temps.
No they haven't. Temp levels have flatlined for the last 18 years. Only through the magic of computer derived science fiction do climatologists come up with fanciful tales of .38 degree rises in temperature. A number that is not measurable in the real world.
You must be referring to the RSS satellite data set, the one that cuts off the upper latitudes and southern latitudes and measures the upper troposphere rather than the surface.
But you don't know the difference or care, because deniers tell you it's not warming.
Scientists who study this are pretty clear.
Bullshit. The amount of increase that is claimed is so slight that it is impossible for the tools we have to measure that fine. Period. The only way they can come up with those silly reports is to massage the raw data through their computers and voila! They have whatever bullshit number they want. But the numbers are still that...bullshit. Not born out by fact.
Yep. I'm a scientist who actually demands empirical data. Terrible I know, you who have staked pretty much your whole religious belief on computer models. Models that are so poor that well known charlatans have a better predictive rate. That's just pathetic.
You may very well be a scientist, but I can't take your word for it.You're one of those.. *sigh*No, temperatures have increased.This is nonsensical. The data and ranges clearly fall in the ranges that were predicted, aside from a few outlier years, which is to be expected in the short run.
Temps have generally been higher since 2010, so we can be sure that most of those years will be well into the predicted range.
All in all, an excellent graph.
See, only people who can't interpret data think that the look of the graph matters. The data is the data, and that data shows remarkable correlation between predicted ranges and observed temps.
No they haven't. Temp levels have flatlined for the last 18 years. Only through the magic of computer derived science fiction do climatologists come up with fanciful tales of .38 degree rises in temperature. A number that is not measurable in the real world.
You must be referring to the RSS satellite data set, the one that cuts off the upper latitudes and southern latitudes and measures the upper troposphere rather than the surface.
But you don't know the difference or care, because deniers tell you it's not warming.
Scientists who study this are pretty clear.
Bullshit. The amount of increase that is claimed is so slight that it is impossible for the tools we have to measure that fine. Period. The only way they can come up with those silly reports is to massage the raw data through their computers and voila! They have whatever bullshit number they want. But the numbers are still that...bullshit. Not born out by fact.
Yep. I'm a scientist who actually demands empirical data. Terrible I know, you who have staked pretty much your whole religious belief on computer models. Models that are so poor that well known charlatans have a better predictive rate. That's just pathetic.
Love the confident statements.[
Bullshit. The amount of increase that is claimed is so slight that it is impossible for the tools we have to measure that fine. Period. The only way they can come up with those silly reports is to massage the raw data through their computers and voila! They have whatever bullshit number they want. But the numbers are still that...bullshit. Not born out by fact.
But I would trust a link more.
And let's make it a scientific link, not some denier website.
So, in other words, you get to ignore all studies done by other countries and believe that NOAA/NASA are wrong on every calculation despite the clear evidence that the temperature is rising?Love the confident statements.[
Bullshit. The amount of increase that is claimed is so slight that it is impossible for the tools we have to measure that fine. Period. The only way they can come up with those silly reports is to massage the raw data through their computers and voila! They have whatever bullshit number they want. But the numbers are still that...bullshit. Not born out by fact.
But I would trust a link more.
And let's make it a scientific link, not some denier website.
Oh, heck you wouldn't pay any attention to those anyway. You're a creature of Skeptical Science and those charlatans.
Here's a simple news story that sets the ground for you. It's simple so even a simple person like you should be able to understand what we're talking about.
I know it's difficult so here it is. NASA states that they are accurate to one tenth of a degree. The "record" though, is five times lower than what NASA claims they can measure.
See the problem? Nope, I didn't think you would. That would be honest and we all know that you are intellectually dishonest.
The U.S. government is at it again, hyping meaningless records in a parameter that does not exist in order to frighten us about something that doesn’t matter.
NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced this week that according to their calculations, July 2015 was the hottest month since instrumental records began in 1880. NOAA says that the record was set by eight one-hundredths of a degree Celsius over that set in July 1998. NASA calculates that July 2015 beat what they assert was the previous warmest month (July 2011) by two one-hundredths of a degree.
But government spokespeople rarely mention the inconvenient fact that these records are being set by less than the uncertainty in the statistics.NOAA claims an uncertainty of 14 one-hundredths of a degree in its temperature averages, or near twice the amount by which they say the record was set. NASA says that their data is typically accurate to one tenth of a degree, five times the amount by which their new record was set.
TOM HARRIS: Global warming: Deceptive temperature record claims - Washington Times
You stated that their statements were out of date, and did not reflect current knowledge. Is the statement from the Royal Society up to date enough for you? 21July15.
Then you want to call these statements just press releases. Well of course, that is what you create a statement for, to release to the general public through the press what the consensus of opinion is on a subject within that Scientific Society.
Climate Change
An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society
(Adopted by AMS Council 20 August 2012)
pdf version
The following is an AMS Information Statement intended to provide a trustworthy, objective, and scientifically up-to-date explanation of scientific issues of concern to the public at large.
Background
This statement provides a brief overview of how and why global climate has changed over the past century and will continue to change in the future. It is based on the peer-reviewed scientific literature and is consistent with the vast weight of current scientific understanding as expressed in assessments and reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and the U.S. Global Change Research Program. Although the statement has been drafted in the context of concerns in the United States, the underlying issues are inherently global in nature.
How is climate changing?
Warming of the climate system now is unequivocal, according to many different kinds of evidence. Observations show increases in globally averaged air and ocean temperatures, as well as widespread melting of snow and ice and rising globally averaged sea level. Surface temperature data for Earth as a whole, including readings over both land and ocean, show an increase of about 0.8°C (1.4°F) over the period 1901─2010 and about 0.5°C (0.9°F) over the period 1979–2010 (the era for which satellite-based temperature data are routinely available). Due to natural variability, not every year is warmer than the preceding year globally. Nevertheless, all of the 10 warmest years in the global temperature records up to 2011 have occurred since 1997, with 2005 and 2010 being the warmest two years in more than a century of global records. The warming trend is greatest in northern high latitudes and over land. In the U.S., most of the observed warming has occurred in the West and in Alaska; for the nation as a whole, there have been twice as many record daily high temperatures as record daily low temperatures in the first decade of the 21st century.
The effects of this warming are especially evident in the planet’s polar regions. Arctic sea ice extent and volume have been decreasing for the past several decades. Both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have lost significant amounts of ice. Most of the world’s glaciers are in retreat.
Other changes, globally and in the U.S., are also occurring at the same time. The amount of rain falling in very heavy precipitation events (the heaviest 1% of all precipitation events) has increased over the last 50 years throughout the U.S. Freezing levels are rising in elevation, with rain occurring more frequently instead of snow at mid-elevations of western mountains. Spring maximum snowpack is decreasing, snowmelt occurs earlier, and the spring runoff that supplies over two-thirds of western U.S. streamflow is reduced. Evidence for warming is also observed in seasonal changes across many areas, including earlier springs, longer frost-free periods, longer growing seasons, and shifts in natural habitats and in migratory patterns of birds and insects.
My goodness, this statement is three years old. How terribly out of date, right?
So, in other words, you get to ignore all studies done by other countries and believe that NOAA/NASA are wrong on every calculation despite the clear evidence that the temperature is rising?Love the confident statements.[
Bullshit. The amount of increase that is claimed is so slight that it is impossible for the tools we have to measure that fine. Period. The only way they can come up with those silly reports is to massage the raw data through their computers and voila! They have whatever bullshit number they want. But the numbers are still that...bullshit. Not born out by fact.
But I would trust a link more.
And let's make it a scientific link, not some denier website.
Oh, heck you wouldn't pay any attention to those anyway. You're a creature of Skeptical Science and those charlatans.
Here's a simple news story that sets the ground for you. It's simple so even a simple person like you should be able to understand what we're talking about.
I know it's difficult so here it is. NASA states that they are accurate to one tenth of a degree. The "record" though, is five times lower than what NASA claims they can measure.
See the problem? Nope, I didn't think you would. That would be honest and we all know that you are intellectually dishonest.
The U.S. government is at it again, hyping meaningless records in a parameter that does not exist in order to frighten us about something that doesn’t matter.
NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced this week that according to their calculations, July 2015 was the hottest month since instrumental records began in 1880. NOAA says that the record was set by eight one-hundredths of a degree Celsius over that set in July 1998. NASA calculates that July 2015 beat what they assert was the previous warmest month (July 2011) by two one-hundredths of a degree.
But government spokespeople rarely mention the inconvenient fact that these records are being set by less than the uncertainty in the statistics.NOAA claims an uncertainty of 14 one-hundredths of a degree in its temperature averages, or near twice the amount by which they say the record was set. NASA says that their data is typically accurate to one tenth of a degree, five times the amount by which their new record was set.
TOM HARRIS: Global warming: Deceptive temperature record claims - Washington Times
I know they say this, and yet, NASA isn't the only one conducting these measurements, and even so, the effects of climate change have been building up since industrialization and are clear, I can care less if they're wrong by 1/10th of a degree, I'll look to other countries/NOAA/etc.. See, the thing is, I hope 2015 isn't the hottest year, that would mean efforts to reduce climate change are going well.So, in other words, you get to ignore all studies done by other countries and believe that NOAA/NASA are wrong on every calculation despite the clear evidence that the temperature is rising?Love the confident statements.[
Bullshit. The amount of increase that is claimed is so slight that it is impossible for the tools we have to measure that fine. Period. The only way they can come up with those silly reports is to massage the raw data through their computers and voila! They have whatever bullshit number they want. But the numbers are still that...bullshit. Not born out by fact.
But I would trust a link more.
And let's make it a scientific link, not some denier website.
Oh, heck you wouldn't pay any attention to those anyway. You're a creature of Skeptical Science and those charlatans.
Here's a simple news story that sets the ground for you. It's simple so even a simple person like you should be able to understand what we're talking about.
I know it's difficult so here it is. NASA states that they are accurate to one tenth of a degree. The "record" though, is five times lower than what NASA claims they can measure.
See the problem? Nope, I didn't think you would. That would be honest and we all know that you are intellectually dishonest.
The U.S. government is at it again, hyping meaningless records in a parameter that does not exist in order to frighten us about something that doesn’t matter.
NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced this week that according to their calculations, July 2015 was the hottest month since instrumental records began in 1880. NOAA says that the record was set by eight one-hundredths of a degree Celsius over that set in July 1998. NASA calculates that July 2015 beat what they assert was the previous warmest month (July 2011) by two one-hundredths of a degree.
But government spokespeople rarely mention the inconvenient fact that these records are being set by less than the uncertainty in the statistics.NOAA claims an uncertainty of 14 one-hundredths of a degree in its temperature averages, or near twice the amount by which they say the record was set. NASA says that their data is typically accurate to one tenth of a degree, five times the amount by which their new record was set.
TOM HARRIS: Global warming: Deceptive temperature record claims - Washington Times
Are you stupid? NASA says they can only measure to a tenth of a degree. THEY say this. How can you then believe their assertions to a record that is five times lower than their admitted ability to measure? Riddle me that Batman. Riddle me that.
According to the NCEP reanalysis data, August 2015 was the warmest on record by 0.08C.
2015 16.149
2014 16.069
2012 16.039
2003 16.021
2013 16.012
So, in other words, you get to ignore all studies done by other countries and believe that NOAA/NASA are wrong on every calculation despite the clear evidence that the temperature is rising?Love the confident statements.[
Bullshit. The amount of increase that is claimed is so slight that it is impossible for the tools we have to measure that fine. Period. The only way they can come up with those silly reports is to massage the raw data through their computers and voila! They have whatever bullshit number they want. But the numbers are still that...bullshit. Not born out by fact.
But I would trust a link more.
And let's make it a scientific link, not some denier website.
Oh, heck you wouldn't pay any attention to those anyway. You're a creature of Skeptical Science and those charlatans.
Here's a simple news story that sets the ground for you. It's simple so even a simple person like you should be able to understand what we're talking about.
I know it's difficult so here it is. NASA states that they are accurate to one tenth of a degree. The "record" though, is five times lower than what NASA claims they can measure.
See the problem? Nope, I didn't think you would. That would be honest and we all know that you are intellectually dishonest.
The U.S. government is at it again, hyping meaningless records in a parameter that does not exist in order to frighten us about something that doesn’t matter.
NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced this week that according to their calculations, July 2015 was the hottest month since instrumental records began in 1880. NOAA says that the record was set by eight one-hundredths of a degree Celsius over that set in July 1998. NASA calculates that July 2015 beat what they assert was the previous warmest month (July 2011) by two one-hundredths of a degree.
But government spokespeople rarely mention the inconvenient fact that these records are being set by less than the uncertainty in the statistics.NOAA claims an uncertainty of 14 one-hundredths of a degree in its temperature averages, or near twice the amount by which they say the record was set. NASA says that their data is typically accurate to one tenth of a degree, five times the amount by which their new record was set.
TOM HARRIS: Global warming: Deceptive temperature record claims - Washington Times
I know they say this, and yet, NASA isn't the only one conducting these measurements, and even so, the effects of climate change have been building up since industrialization and are clear, I can care less if they're wrong by 1/10th of a degree, I'll look to other countries/NOAA/etc.. See, the thing is, I hope 2015 isn't the hottest year, that would mean efforts to reduce climate change are going well.So, in other words, you get to ignore all studies done by other countries and believe that NOAA/NASA are wrong on every calculation despite the clear evidence that the temperature is rising?Love the confident statements.[
Bullshit. The amount of increase that is claimed is so slight that it is impossible for the tools we have to measure that fine. Period. The only way they can come up with those silly reports is to massage the raw data through their computers and voila! They have whatever bullshit number they want. But the numbers are still that...bullshit. Not born out by fact.
But I would trust a link more.
And let's make it a scientific link, not some denier website.
Oh, heck you wouldn't pay any attention to those anyway. You're a creature of Skeptical Science and those charlatans.
Here's a simple news story that sets the ground for you. It's simple so even a simple person like you should be able to understand what we're talking about.
I know it's difficult so here it is. NASA states that they are accurate to one tenth of a degree. The "record" though, is five times lower than what NASA claims they can measure.
See the problem? Nope, I didn't think you would. That would be honest and we all know that you are intellectually dishonest.
The U.S. government is at it again, hyping meaningless records in a parameter that does not exist in order to frighten us about something that doesn’t matter.
NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced this week that according to their calculations, July 2015 was the hottest month since instrumental records began in 1880. NOAA says that the record was set by eight one-hundredths of a degree Celsius over that set in July 1998. NASA calculates that July 2015 beat what they assert was the previous warmest month (July 2011) by two one-hundredths of a degree.
But government spokespeople rarely mention the inconvenient fact that these records are being set by less than the uncertainty in the statistics.NOAA claims an uncertainty of 14 one-hundredths of a degree in its temperature averages, or near twice the amount by which they say the record was set. NASA says that their data is typically accurate to one tenth of a degree, five times the amount by which their new record was set.
TOM HARRIS: Global warming: Deceptive temperature record claims - Washington Times
Are you stupid? NASA says they can only measure to a tenth of a degree. THEY say this. How can you then believe their assertions to a record that is five times lower than their admitted ability to measure? Riddle me that Batman. Riddle me that.
Well, here's an even older one, from about 35 years ago.Go find a consensus TODAY... It doesn't exist.. Unless the questions are juvenile and unimportant.. Like is the climate changing? Or does man "have a role" in that change.
A consensus certainly exists today. And it's stronger than its been in the past. Look at the last IPCC. Heck- glance at any scientific journal, from the top ones to Scientific American- they all agree with the NAS, AGU, and the AAAS.
You're living in the hottest year of the hottest decade ever directly recorded. And it was predicted almost 30 years ago, fairly closely. That's pretty good evidence right there.
It was predicted 30 years ago fool?
Post a link?
And if you say you are a "scientist"
Give me day to day data of the oceans temperature between 1870 (when great Britains challenger was launched to for that one year cruise )~ 2004 when we started monitoring the oceans temperatures
http://m.sciencemag.org/content/213/4511/957
Here's a good explanation of what it looked like decades later, written by climatologists:
Evaluating a 1981 temperature projection
Evaluating a 1981 temperature projection
Well, if you think I'm a high school kid, it doesn't say a whole lot about how far your education went.threegoofs is a newbie who doesn't know much of anything but what the gullible press spoonfeeds the public. As is evident by his posts and responses.
No shit a high school kid.
So, in other words, you get to ignore all studies done by other countries and believe that NOAA/NASA are wrong on every calculation despite the clear evidence that the temperature is rising?Love the confident statements.[
Bullshit. The amount of increase that is claimed is so slight that it is impossible for the tools we have to measure that fine. Period. The only way they can come up with those silly reports is to massage the raw data through their computers and voila! They have whatever bullshit number they want. But the numbers are still that...bullshit. Not born out by fact.
But I would trust a link more.
And let's make it a scientific link, not some denier website.
Oh, heck you wouldn't pay any attention to those anyway. You're a creature of Skeptical Science and those charlatans.
Here's a simple news story that sets the ground for you. It's simple so even a simple person like you should be able to understand what we're talking about.
I know it's difficult so here it is. NASA states that they are accurate to one tenth of a degree. The "record" though, is five times lower than what NASA claims they can measure.
See the problem? Nope, I didn't think you would. That would be honest and we all know that you are intellectually dishonest.
The U.S. government is at it again, hyping meaningless records in a parameter that does not exist in order to frighten us about something that doesn’t matter.
NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced this week that according to their calculations, July 2015 was the hottest month since instrumental records began in 1880. NOAA says that the record was set by eight one-hundredths of a degree Celsius over that set in July 1998. NASA calculates that July 2015 beat what they assert was the previous warmest month (July 2011) by two one-hundredths of a degree.
But government spokespeople rarely mention the inconvenient fact that these records are being set by less than the uncertainty in the statistics.NOAA claims an uncertainty of 14 one-hundredths of a degree in its temperature averages, or near twice the amount by which they say the record was set. NASA says that their data is typically accurate to one tenth of a degree, five times the amount by which their new record was set.
TOM HARRIS: Global warming: Deceptive temperature record claims - Washington Times
You seem to measure progress against Global Warming politically.. So if we build more windmills and the temperatures cool off a bit --- the heroes are those wise and far-seeing politicos that funded them? It's that's easy for you --- don't change a thing. Keep on believing in magic and fairy dust..
NASA GISS (the "space systems" guys) have to IGNORE THEIR OWN SATELLITE data entirely to make those fervent scary press releases about "warmest ever" every month.. Instead they "hand interpret" 100,000 thermometer coverage so that they can "juice stuff up a bit" to make the headline..
Bet you believe the balance in the Soc Sec trust fund, the ObamaCare enrollment numbers, numbers of deported, and the Unemployment figures when they are first announced to make the headline.. You never HEAR about the retractions a couple weeks later.. Which is what NASA has been doing several times a year now with these "records"...
You go ahead and plan your life and finances on ANY numbers coming fresh out of the Fed Govt lately..
Ah, so all these scientfic societies are in on a huge conspiracy or committing scientific fraud. Somehow, this just doesn't make sense.
Did not say that.. The societal endorsement however means about as much as NASCAR pledging to go green. (Oh you didn't mean "start the race"??) They didn't ask the team owners or drivers until AFTER the campaign was designed and launched.. In this case --- those scientific orgs NEVER involved the membership in those statements and if they DID -- you would have heard about the debates --- like you did with Australia Geophysical Union..
Realize asspublicans Obama won by 350 electorals in 2012! Do you assholes really think that cut, slash and deregulate will do anything differently in 2016? Assholes?
Ah, so all these scientfic societies are in on a huge conspiracy or committing scientific fraud. Somehow, this just doesn't make sense.
Did not say that.. The societal endorsement however means about as much as NASCAR pledging to go green. (Oh you didn't mean "start the race"??) They didn't ask the team owners or drivers until AFTER the campaign was designed and launched.. In this case --- those scientific orgs NEVER involved the membership in those statements and if they DID -- you would have heard about the debates --- like you did with Australia Geophysical Union..
They've been holding those positions for years now. Have we seen any great upheaval in the scientific societies from the membership in disagreement? No.
