February may have been the warmest month on record,

[Muhammed]

The Earth is a big place. The U.S. only covers less than 2% of the Earth's surface. Globally, 2014 was the hottest year on record at that time, although that record was broken again, by an even larger margin in 2015, and will very likely be broken yet again in 2016.

Looking at just one year in just the USA does not reflect the global picture. A longer time frame is essential to understanding the trend.

In the USA, 2012 was the hottest year on record by a large margin, and the ratio of record highs to record lows mirrored that. 2016 may wind up as the next new hottest year on record in the USA.

The interactive above shows the top 10 states with the biggest difference between the number of high-temperature and low-temperature records under the Ratio to Low tab at the top. Ohio has thus far seen 49 high-temperature records set for every one low-temperature record. Maryland and Wisconsin have both seen about 41 record highs for every one record low. All of the states in the top 10 have seen more than 20 record highs for every record low, and there hasn’t been a single state that has seen more low-temperature records than highs (or even a 1:1 ratio). Of note is Rhode Island, where there has not been a single low-temperature record set yet in 2012.

2013 and 2014 were a bit cooler in the U.S., but in 2015 he ratio of record highs to record lows has once again shifted to more record highs than record lows.

Record Highs vs. Record Lows
ClimateCentral
Aug 19th, 2015
This year is on pace to be the hottest on record globally, coming off a record hot year in 2014. Looking closer to home, parts of the western U.S. are also in the midst of one of their hottest years on record so far. Another important set of records are the daily records set at stations across the country.

Without climate change, the ratio of daily record highs to daily record lows should be in balance when looking over years and decades — although there will still be swings to cold and hot years. However, over the last several decades in the U.S. record highs are significantly outpacing record lows, which indicates a long-term and sustained warming trend.

Despite the record heat dominating the West the past two years, the relatively chilly air across the East has been enough to tip the balance in favor of lows over highs (although the ratio is nearly 1-to-1). But the daily record highs have come roaring back this year, outpacing record lows nearly 2-to-1 since the beginning of 2015.



If we look in terms of decades, the 2000s and 2010s have seen record highs outweigh record lows by a higher ratio than any other decade in the last century, even during the notoriously hot Dust Bowl era of the 1930s. The number of record highs being set is especially telling because the statistical chance of breaking a record decreases as the length of time records are kept increases.

Examining all of the record low temperatures yields another dramatic result — since the first of the year, the number of all-time warm low-temperature records is outpacing the corresponding cold ones by a ratio of more than 6-to-1. This emphasizes that warmer nights are a major factor in the overall warming trend, not just hotter days.

As greenhouse gas emissions continue to accumulate in the atmosphere and warm the planet, record warm temperatures will further outpace record cold temperatures. In fact, model projections show that the ratio of daily record highs to lows will be around 20-to-1 by mid-century, growing to 50-to-1 by the end of the century (according to the A1B emission scenario).

NOTE: If you would like to find the latest record tally, The National Centers of Environmental Information (formerly NCDC), maintains a running summary.

and how much of the globe has temperature stations?

The Earth is a big place. The U.S. only covers less than 2% of the Earth's surface. Globally, 2014 was the hottest year on record at that time, although that record was broken again, by an even larger margin in 2015, and will very likely be broken yet again in 2016.

Looking at just one year in just the USA does not reflect the global picture. A longer time frame is essential to understanding the trend.

In the USA, 2012 was the hottest year on record by a large margin, and the ratio of record highs to record lows mirrored that. 2016 may wind up as the next new hottest year on record in the USA.

The interactive above shows the top 10 states with the biggest difference between the number of high-temperature and low-temperature records under the Ratio to Low tab at the top. Ohio has thus far seen 49 high-temperature records set for every one low-temperature record. Maryland and Wisconsin have both seen about 41 record highs for every one record low. All of the states in the top 10 have seen more than 20 record highs for every record low, and there hasn’t been a single state that has seen more low-temperature records than highs (or even a 1:1 ratio). Of note is Rhode Island, where there has not been a single low-temperature record set yet in 2012.

2013 and 2014 were a bit cooler in the U.S., but in 2015 he ratio of record highs to record lows has once again shifted to more record highs than record lows.

Record Highs vs. Record Lows
ClimateCentral
Aug 19th, 2015
This year is on pace to be the hottest on record globally, coming off a record hot year in 2014. Looking closer to home, parts of the western U.S. are also in the midst of one of their hottest years on record so far. Another important set of records are the daily records set at stations across the country.

Without climate change, the ratio of daily record highs to daily record lows should be in balance when looking over years and decades — although there will still be swings to cold and hot years. However, over the last several decades in the U.S. record highs are significantly outpacing record lows, which indicates a long-term and sustained warming trend.

Despite the record heat dominating the West the past two years, the relatively chilly air across the East has been enough to tip the balance in favor of lows over highs (although the ratio is nearly 1-to-1). But the daily record highs have come roaring back this year, outpacing record lows nearly 2-to-1 since the beginning of 2015.



If we look in terms of decades, the 2000s and 2010s have seen record highs outweigh record lows by a higher ratio than any other decade in the last century, even during the notoriously hot Dust Bowl era of the 1930s. The number of record highs being set is especially telling because the statistical chance of breaking a record decreases as the length of time records are kept increases.

Examining all of the record low temperatures yields another dramatic result — since the first of the year, the number of all-time warm low-temperature records is outpacing the corresponding cold ones by a ratio of more than 6-to-1. This emphasizes that warmer nights are a major factor in the overall warming trend, not just hotter days.

As greenhouse gas emissions continue to accumulate in the atmosphere and warm the planet, record warm temperatures will further outpace record cold temperatures. In fact, model projections show that the ratio of daily record highs to lows will be around 20-to-1 by mid-century, growing to 50-to-1 by the end of the century (according to the A1B emission scenario).

NOTE: If you would like to find the latest record tally, The National Centers of Environmental Information (formerly NCDC), maintains a running summary.

and how much of the globe has temperature stations?

Were Chinese Stevenson screen meteorological instrumental records very accurate during the Cultural Revolution when damn near everyone who looked older than 12 years old was systematically slaughtered by the Mao government?

Wang admitted that he lied about the weather station locations. Hansen called bullshit in the e-mails that a WikiLinks whistle-blower exposed to the scientific community. (Climategate) They were flat out stone cold busted!

But idiots like RT and OR do not know what the fuck I'm talking about. They are that clueless.

Everybody knows what you are spewing now, retard....really dumbfuck fraudulent anti-science denier cult myths and incoherent crackpot drivel!

I would bet 1000:1 odds that you don't even know who the hell Wang is.

You are not a scientist. I am a scientist. You are a nutjob.

 

[RollingThunder]

The Earth is a big place. The U.S. only covers less than 2% of the Earth's surface. Globally, 2014 was the hottest year on record at that time, although that record was broken again, by an even larger margin in 2015, and will very likely be broken yet again in 2016.

Looking at just one year in just the USA does not reflect the global picture. A longer time frame is essential to understanding the trend.

In the USA, 2012 was the hottest year on record by a large margin, and the ratio of record highs to record lows mirrored that. 2016 may wind up as the next new hottest year on record in the USA.

The interactive above shows the top 10 states with the biggest difference between the number of high-temperature and low-temperature records under the Ratio to Low tab at the top. Ohio has thus far seen 49 high-temperature records set for every one low-temperature record. Maryland and Wisconsin have both seen about 41 record highs for every one record low. All of the states in the top 10 have seen more than 20 record highs for every record low, and there hasn’t been a single state that has seen more low-temperature records than highs (or even a 1:1 ratio). Of note is Rhode Island, where there has not been a single low-temperature record set yet in 2012.

2013 and 2014 were a bit cooler in the U.S., but in 2015 he ratio of record highs to record lows has once again shifted to more record highs than record lows.

Record Highs vs. Record Lows
ClimateCentral
Aug 19th, 2015
This year is on pace to be the hottest on record globally, coming off a record hot year in 2014. Looking closer to home, parts of the western U.S. are also in the midst of one of their hottest years on record so far. Another important set of records are the daily records set at stations across the country.

Without climate change, the ratio of daily record highs to daily record lows should be in balance when looking over years and decades — although there will still be swings to cold and hot years. However, over the last several decades in the U.S. record highs are significantly outpacing record lows, which indicates a long-term and sustained warming trend.

Despite the record heat dominating the West the past two years, the relatively chilly air across the East has been enough to tip the balance in favor of lows over highs (although the ratio is nearly 1-to-1). But the daily record highs have come roaring back this year, outpacing record lows nearly 2-to-1 since the beginning of 2015.



If we look in terms of decades, the 2000s and 2010s have seen record highs outweigh record lows by a higher ratio than any other decade in the last century, even during the notoriously hot Dust Bowl era of the 1930s. The number of record highs being set is especially telling because the statistical chance of breaking a record decreases as the length of time records are kept increases.

Examining all of the record low temperatures yields another dramatic result — since the first of the year, the number of all-time warm low-temperature records is outpacing the corresponding cold ones by a ratio of more than 6-to-1. This emphasizes that warmer nights are a major factor in the overall warming trend, not just hotter days.

As greenhouse gas emissions continue to accumulate in the atmosphere and warm the planet, record warm temperatures will further outpace record cold temperatures. In fact, model projections show that the ratio of daily record highs to lows will be around 20-to-1 by mid-century, growing to 50-to-1 by the end of the century (according to the A1B emission scenario).

NOTE: If you would like to find the latest record tally, The National Centers of Environmental Information (formerly NCDC), maintains a running summary.

and how much of the globe has temperature stations?

The Earth is a big place. The U.S. only covers less than 2% of the Earth's surface. Globally, 2014 was the hottest year on record at that time, although that record was broken again, by an even larger margin in 2015, and will very likely be broken yet again in 2016.

Looking at just one year in just the USA does not reflect the global picture. A longer time frame is essential to understanding the trend.

In the USA, 2012 was the hottest year on record by a large margin, and the ratio of record highs to record lows mirrored that. 2016 may wind up as the next new hottest year on record in the USA.

The interactive above shows the top 10 states with the biggest difference between the number of high-temperature and low-temperature records under the Ratio to Low tab at the top. Ohio has thus far seen 49 high-temperature records set for every one low-temperature record. Maryland and Wisconsin have both seen about 41 record highs for every one record low. All of the states in the top 10 have seen more than 20 record highs for every record low, and there hasn’t been a single state that has seen more low-temperature records than highs (or even a 1:1 ratio). Of note is Rhode Island, where there has not been a single low-temperature record set yet in 2012.

2013 and 2014 were a bit cooler in the U.S., but in 2015 he ratio of record highs to record lows has once again shifted to more record highs than record lows.

Record Highs vs. Record Lows
ClimateCentral
Aug 19th, 2015
This year is on pace to be the hottest on record globally, coming off a record hot year in 2014. Looking closer to home, parts of the western U.S. are also in the midst of one of their hottest years on record so far. Another important set of records are the daily records set at stations across the country.

Without climate change, the ratio of daily record highs to daily record lows should be in balance when looking over years and decades — although there will still be swings to cold and hot years. However, over the last several decades in the U.S. record highs are significantly outpacing record lows, which indicates a long-term and sustained warming trend.

Despite the record heat dominating the West the past two years, the relatively chilly air across the East has been enough to tip the balance in favor of lows over highs (although the ratio is nearly 1-to-1). But the daily record highs have come roaring back this year, outpacing record lows nearly 2-to-1 since the beginning of 2015.



If we look in terms of decades, the 2000s and 2010s have seen record highs outweigh record lows by a higher ratio than any other decade in the last century, even during the notoriously hot Dust Bowl era of the 1930s. The number of record highs being set is especially telling because the statistical chance of breaking a record decreases as the length of time records are kept increases.

Examining all of the record low temperatures yields another dramatic result — since the first of the year, the number of all-time warm low-temperature records is outpacing the corresponding cold ones by a ratio of more than 6-to-1. This emphasizes that warmer nights are a major factor in the overall warming trend, not just hotter days.

As greenhouse gas emissions continue to accumulate in the atmosphere and warm the planet, record warm temperatures will further outpace record cold temperatures. In fact, model projections show that the ratio of daily record highs to lows will be around 20-to-1 by mid-century, growing to 50-to-1 by the end of the century (according to the A1B emission scenario).

NOTE: If you would like to find the latest record tally, The National Centers of Environmental Information (formerly NCDC), maintains a running summary.

and how much of the globe has temperature stations?

Were Chinese Stevenson screen meteorological instrumental records very accurate during the Cultural Revolution when damn near everyone who looked older than 12 years old was systematically slaughtered by the Mao government?

Wang admitted that he lied about the weather station locations. Hansen called bullshit in the e-mails that a WikiLinks whistle-blower exposed to the scientific community. (Climategate) They were flat out stone cold busted!

But idiots like RT and OR do not know what the fuck I'm talking about. They are that clueless.

Everybody knows what you are spewing now, retard....really dumbfuck fraudulent anti-science denier cult myths and incoherent crackpot drivel!

I would bet 1000:1 odds that you don't even know who the hell Wang is. You are not a scientist. I am a scientist. You are a nutjob.

You are not a scientist. You are a nutjob. Truth!

Nobody cares about your crackpot denier cult myths, MuMu.

 

[Muhammed]

The Earth is a big place. The U.S. only covers less than 2% of the Earth's surface. Globally, 2014 was the hottest year on record at that time, although that record was broken again, by an even larger margin in 2015, and will very likely be broken yet again in 2016.

Looking at just one year in just the USA does not reflect the global picture. A longer time frame is essential to understanding the trend.

In the USA, 2012 was the hottest year on record by a large margin, and the ratio of record highs to record lows mirrored that. 2016 may wind up as the next new hottest year on record in the USA.

The interactive above shows the top 10 states with the biggest difference between the number of high-temperature and low-temperature records under the Ratio to Low tab at the top. Ohio has thus far seen 49 high-temperature records set for every one low-temperature record. Maryland and Wisconsin have both seen about 41 record highs for every one record low. All of the states in the top 10 have seen more than 20 record highs for every record low, and there hasn’t been a single state that has seen more low-temperature records than highs (or even a 1:1 ratio). Of note is Rhode Island, where there has not been a single low-temperature record set yet in 2012.

2013 and 2014 were a bit cooler in the U.S., but in 2015 he ratio of record highs to record lows has once again shifted to more record highs than record lows.

Record Highs vs. Record Lows
ClimateCentral
Aug 19th, 2015
This year is on pace to be the hottest on record globally, coming off a record hot year in 2014. Looking closer to home, parts of the western U.S. are also in the midst of one of their hottest years on record so far. Another important set of records are the daily records set at stations across the country.

Without climate change, the ratio of daily record highs to daily record lows should be in balance when looking over years and decades — although there will still be swings to cold and hot years. However, over the last several decades in the U.S. record highs are significantly outpacing record lows, which indicates a long-term and sustained warming trend.

Despite the record heat dominating the West the past two years, the relatively chilly air across the East has been enough to tip the balance in favor of lows over highs (although the ratio is nearly 1-to-1). But the daily record highs have come roaring back this year, outpacing record lows nearly 2-to-1 since the beginning of 2015.



If we look in terms of decades, the 2000s and 2010s have seen record highs outweigh record lows by a higher ratio than any other decade in the last century, even during the notoriously hot Dust Bowl era of the 1930s. The number of record highs being set is especially telling because the statistical chance of breaking a record decreases as the length of time records are kept increases.

Examining all of the record low temperatures yields another dramatic result — since the first of the year, the number of all-time warm low-temperature records is outpacing the corresponding cold ones by a ratio of more than 6-to-1. This emphasizes that warmer nights are a major factor in the overall warming trend, not just hotter days.

As greenhouse gas emissions continue to accumulate in the atmosphere and warm the planet, record warm temperatures will further outpace record cold temperatures. In fact, model projections show that the ratio of daily record highs to lows will be around 20-to-1 by mid-century, growing to 50-to-1 by the end of the century (according to the A1B emission scenario).

NOTE: If you would like to find the latest record tally, The National Centers of Environmental Information (formerly NCDC), maintains a running summary.

and how much of the globe has temperature stations?

The Earth is a big place. The U.S. only covers less than 2% of the Earth's surface. Globally, 2014 was the hottest year on record at that time, although that record was broken again, by an even larger margin in 2015, and will very likely be broken yet again in 2016.

Looking at just one year in just the USA does not reflect the global picture. A longer time frame is essential to understanding the trend.

In the USA, 2012 was the hottest year on record by a large margin, and the ratio of record highs to record lows mirrored that. 2016 may wind up as the next new hottest year on record in the USA.

The interactive above shows the top 10 states with the biggest difference between the number of high-temperature and low-temperature records under the Ratio to Low tab at the top. Ohio has thus far seen 49 high-temperature records set for every one low-temperature record. Maryland and Wisconsin have both seen about 41 record highs for every one record low. All of the states in the top 10 have seen more than 20 record highs for every record low, and there hasn’t been a single state that has seen more low-temperature records than highs (or even a 1:1 ratio). Of note is Rhode Island, where there has not been a single low-temperature record set yet in 2012.

2013 and 2014 were a bit cooler in the U.S., but in 2015 he ratio of record highs to record lows has once again shifted to more record highs than record lows.

Record Highs vs. Record Lows
ClimateCentral
Aug 19th, 2015
This year is on pace to be the hottest on record globally, coming off a record hot year in 2014. Looking closer to home, parts of the western U.S. are also in the midst of one of their hottest years on record so far. Another important set of records are the daily records set at stations across the country.

Without climate change, the ratio of daily record highs to daily record lows should be in balance when looking over years and decades — although there will still be swings to cold and hot years. However, over the last several decades in the U.S. record highs are significantly outpacing record lows, which indicates a long-term and sustained warming trend.

Despite the record heat dominating the West the past two years, the relatively chilly air across the East has been enough to tip the balance in favor of lows over highs (although the ratio is nearly 1-to-1). But the daily record highs have come roaring back this year, outpacing record lows nearly 2-to-1 since the beginning of 2015.



If we look in terms of decades, the 2000s and 2010s have seen record highs outweigh record lows by a higher ratio than any other decade in the last century, even during the notoriously hot Dust Bowl era of the 1930s. The number of record highs being set is especially telling because the statistical chance of breaking a record decreases as the length of time records are kept increases.

Examining all of the record low temperatures yields another dramatic result — since the first of the year, the number of all-time warm low-temperature records is outpacing the corresponding cold ones by a ratio of more than 6-to-1. This emphasizes that warmer nights are a major factor in the overall warming trend, not just hotter days.

As greenhouse gas emissions continue to accumulate in the atmosphere and warm the planet, record warm temperatures will further outpace record cold temperatures. In fact, model projections show that the ratio of daily record highs to lows will be around 20-to-1 by mid-century, growing to 50-to-1 by the end of the century (according to the A1B emission scenario).

NOTE: If you would like to find the latest record tally, The National Centers of Environmental Information (formerly NCDC), maintains a running summary.

and how much of the globe has temperature stations?

Were Chinese Stevenson screen meteorological instrumental records very accurate during the Cultural Revolution when damn near everyone who looked older than 12 years old was systematically slaughtered by the Mao government?

Wang admitted that he lied about the weather station locations. Hansen called bullshit in the e-mails that a WikiLinks whistle-blower exposed to the scientific community. (Climategate) They were flat out stone cold busted!

But idiots like RT and OR do not know what the fuck I'm talking about. They are that clueless.

Everybody knows what you are spewing now, retard....really dumbfuck fraudulent anti-science denier cult myths and incoherent crackpot drivel!

I would bet 1000:1 odds that you don't even know who the hell Wang is. You are not a scientist. I am a scientist. You are a nutjob.

You are not a scientist. You are a nutjob. Truth!

Nobody cares about your crackpot denier cult myths, MuMu.

Actually I am a scientist. I am an expert in dozens of sciences. By definition that makes me a scientist. IQ = 158. More intelligent than 99.99% of the population.

You, on the other hand, are a member of a crackpot retarded doomsday cult. Just like Jim Jones, Charles Manson, David Koresh, Shoko Asahara, etc,etc...

You and your ilk continuously preach an insane religious belief that says the world is going to end in some crazy hellfire doomsday scenario caused by a trace gas known as carbon dioxide that makes up a hell of a lot less than one fucking percent of the fucking atmosphere.

You're a SADFI.

 

[Crick]

158? Wow. What are you doing here? And why are your arguments so poor?

 

[RollingThunder]

The Earth is a big place. The U.S. only covers less than 2% of the Earth's surface. Globally, 2014 was the hottest year on record at that time, although that record was broken again, by an even larger margin in 2015, and will very likely be broken yet again in 2016.

Looking at just one year in just the USA does not reflect the global picture. A longer time frame is essential to understanding the trend.

In the USA, 2012 was the hottest year on record by a large margin, and the ratio of record highs to record lows mirrored that. 2016 may wind up as the next new hottest year on record in the USA.

The interactive above shows the top 10 states with the biggest difference between the number of high-temperature and low-temperature records under the Ratio to Low tab at the top. Ohio has thus far seen 49 high-temperature records set for every one low-temperature record. Maryland and Wisconsin have both seen about 41 record highs for every one record low. All of the states in the top 10 have seen more than 20 record highs for every record low, and there hasn’t been a single state that has seen more low-temperature records than highs (or even a 1:1 ratio). Of note is Rhode Island, where there has not been a single low-temperature record set yet in 2012.

2013 and 2014 were a bit cooler in the U.S., but in 2015 he ratio of record highs to record lows has once again shifted to more record highs than record lows.

Record Highs vs. Record Lows
ClimateCentral
Aug 19th, 2015
This year is on pace to be the hottest on record globally, coming off a record hot year in 2014. Looking closer to home, parts of the western U.S. are also in the midst of one of their hottest years on record so far. Another important set of records are the daily records set at stations across the country.

Without climate change, the ratio of daily record highs to daily record lows should be in balance when looking over years and decades — although there will still be swings to cold and hot years. However, over the last several decades in the U.S. record highs are significantly outpacing record lows, which indicates a long-term and sustained warming trend.

Despite the record heat dominating the West the past two years, the relatively chilly air across the East has been enough to tip the balance in favor of lows over highs (although the ratio is nearly 1-to-1). But the daily record highs have come roaring back this year, outpacing record lows nearly 2-to-1 since the beginning of 2015.



If we look in terms of decades, the 2000s and 2010s have seen record highs outweigh record lows by a higher ratio than any other decade in the last century, even during the notoriously hot Dust Bowl era of the 1930s. The number of record highs being set is especially telling because the statistical chance of breaking a record decreases as the length of time records are kept increases.

Examining all of the record low temperatures yields another dramatic result — since the first of the year, the number of all-time warm low-temperature records is outpacing the corresponding cold ones by a ratio of more than 6-to-1. This emphasizes that warmer nights are a major factor in the overall warming trend, not just hotter days.

As greenhouse gas emissions continue to accumulate in the atmosphere and warm the planet, record warm temperatures will further outpace record cold temperatures. In fact, model projections show that the ratio of daily record highs to lows will be around 20-to-1 by mid-century, growing to 50-to-1 by the end of the century (according to the A1B emission scenario).

NOTE: If you would like to find the latest record tally, The National Centers of Environmental Information (formerly NCDC), maintains a running summary.

and how much of the globe has temperature stations?

and how much of the globe has temperature stations?

Were Chinese Stevenson screen meteorological instrumental records very accurate during the Cultural Revolution when damn near everyone who looked older than 12 years old was systematically slaughtered by the Mao government?

Wang admitted that he lied about the weather station locations. Hansen called bullshit in the e-mails that a WikiLinks whistle-blower exposed to the scientific community. (Climategate) They were flat out stone cold busted!

But idiots like RT and OR do not know what the fuck I'm talking about. They are that clueless.

Everybody knows what you are spewing now, retard....really dumbfuck fraudulent anti-science denier cult myths and incoherent crackpot drivel!

I would bet 1000:1 odds that you don't even know who the hell Wang is. You are not a scientist. I am a scientist. You are a nutjob.

You are not a scientist. You are a nutjob. Truth!

Nobody cares about your crackpot denier cult myths, MuMu.

Actually I am a scientist. I am an expert in dozens of sciences. By definition that makes me a scientist. IQ = 158. More intelligent than 99.99% of the population.

You, on the other hand, are a member of a crackpot retarded doomsday cult. Just like Jim Jones, Charles Manson, David Koresh, Shoko Asahara, etc,etc...

You and your ilk continuously preach an insane religious belief that says the world is going to end in some crazy hellfire doomsday scenario caused by a trace gas known as carbon dioxide that makes up a hell of a lot less than one fucking percent of the fucking atmosphere.

You're a SADFI.

Retards can claim anything on anonymous forums, as you are demonstrating.

Your unsupported claims are utterly meaningless. The proof is in what you say here.

Your posts consistently demonstrate very low intelligence, enormous ignorance about everything but especially science, multiple delusions, and insane crackpot conspiracy theories.

You are definitely a rightwingnut retard, severely afflicted by the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

 

[Muhammed]

The Earth is a big place. The U.S. only covers less than 2% of the Earth's surface. Globally, 2014 was the hottest year on record at that time, although that record was broken again, by an even larger margin in 2015, and will very likely be broken yet again in 2016.

Looking at just one year in just the USA does not reflect the global picture. A longer time frame is essential to understanding the trend.

In the USA, 2012 was the hottest year on record by a large margin, and the ratio of record highs to record lows mirrored that. 2016 may wind up as the next new hottest year on record in the USA.

The interactive above shows the top 10 states with the biggest difference between the number of high-temperature and low-temperature records under the Ratio to Low tab at the top. Ohio has thus far seen 49 high-temperature records set for every one low-temperature record. Maryland and Wisconsin have both seen about 41 record highs for every one record low. All of the states in the top 10 have seen more than 20 record highs for every record low, and there hasn’t been a single state that has seen more low-temperature records than highs (or even a 1:1 ratio). Of note is Rhode Island, where there has not been a single low-temperature record set yet in 2012.

2013 and 2014 were a bit cooler in the U.S., but in 2015 he ratio of record highs to record lows has once again shifted to more record highs than record lows.

Record Highs vs. Record Lows
ClimateCentral
Aug 19th, 2015
This year is on pace to be the hottest on record globally, coming off a record hot year in 2014. Looking closer to home, parts of the western U.S. are also in the midst of one of their hottest years on record so far. Another important set of records are the daily records set at stations across the country.

Without climate change, the ratio of daily record highs to daily record lows should be in balance when looking over years and decades — although there will still be swings to cold and hot years. However, over the last several decades in the U.S. record highs are significantly outpacing record lows, which indicates a long-term and sustained warming trend.

Despite the record heat dominating the West the past two years, the relatively chilly air across the East has been enough to tip the balance in favor of lows over highs (although the ratio is nearly 1-to-1). But the daily record highs have come roaring back this year, outpacing record lows nearly 2-to-1 since the beginning of 2015.



If we look in terms of decades, the 2000s and 2010s have seen record highs outweigh record lows by a higher ratio than any other decade in the last century, even during the notoriously hot Dust Bowl era of the 1930s. The number of record highs being set is especially telling because the statistical chance of breaking a record decreases as the length of time records are kept increases.

Examining all of the record low temperatures yields another dramatic result — since the first of the year, the number of all-time warm low-temperature records is outpacing the corresponding cold ones by a ratio of more than 6-to-1. This emphasizes that warmer nights are a major factor in the overall warming trend, not just hotter days.

As greenhouse gas emissions continue to accumulate in the atmosphere and warm the planet, record warm temperatures will further outpace record cold temperatures. In fact, model projections show that the ratio of daily record highs to lows will be around 20-to-1 by mid-century, growing to 50-to-1 by the end of the century (according to the A1B emission scenario).

NOTE: If you would like to find the latest record tally, The National Centers of Environmental Information (formerly NCDC), maintains a running summary.

and how much of the globe has temperature stations?

Were Chinese Stevenson screen meteorological instrumental records very accurate during the Cultural Revolution when damn near everyone who looked older than 12 years old was systematically slaughtered by the Mao government?

Wang admitted that he lied about the weather station locations. Hansen called bullshit in the e-mails that a WikiLinks whistle-blower exposed to the scientific community. (Climategate) They were flat out stone cold busted!

But idiots like RT and OR do not know what the fuck I'm talking about. They are that clueless.

Everybody knows what you are spewing now, retard....really dumbfuck fraudulent anti-science denier cult myths and incoherent crackpot drivel!

I would bet 1000:1 odds that you don't even know who the hell Wang is. You are not a scientist. I am a scientist. You are a nutjob.

You are not a scientist. You are a nutjob. Truth!

Nobody cares about your crackpot denier cult myths, MuMu.

Actually I am a scientist. I am an expert in dozens of sciences. By definition that makes me a scientist. IQ = 158. More intelligent than 99.99% of the population.

You, on the other hand, are a member of a crackpot retarded doomsday cult. Just like Jim Jones, Charles Manson, David Koresh, Shoko Asahara, etc,etc...

You and your ilk continuously preach an insane religious belief that says the world is going to end in some crazy hellfire doomsday scenario caused by a trace gas known as carbon dioxide that makes up a hell of a lot less than one fucking percent of the fucking atmosphere.

You're a SADFI.

Retards can claim anything on anonymous forums, as you are demonstrating.

Your unsupported claims are utterly meaningless. The proof is in what you say here.

Your posts consistently demonstrate very low intelligence, enormous ignorance about everything but especially science, multiple delusions, and insane crackpot conspiracy theories.

You are definitely a rightwingnut retard, severely afflicted by the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

Can you give an example of one of those "conspiracy theories"? Or are you just fucked up in the head? Or what?

You don't know anything about science at all. Your posts prove that you cannot think logically, DAN.

 

[Crick]

He said nothing there about any conspiracy theories. You'd think someone with a 158 IQ, expert in dozens of sciences, would know that. Since this thread was started, other sources have come to the same conclusion. The world is getting warmer at a rapid pace. There was no pause. We've waited too long, due at least in part to irresponsible fools like you.

 

[Crick]

Just out of curiosity, could you name 3 out of the "dozens" of sciences in which you are "an expert"? Perhaps your strongest 3, so we know on what topics we might come to you for "expert" advice.

 

[RollingThunder]

and how much of the globe has temperature stations?

Everybody knows what you are spewing now, retard....really dumbfuck fraudulent anti-science denier cult myths and incoherent crackpot drivel!

I would bet 1000:1 odds that you don't even know who the hell Wang is. You are not a scientist. I am a scientist. You are a nutjob.

You are not a scientist. You are a nutjob. Truth!

Nobody cares about your crackpot denier cult myths, MuMu.

Actually I am a scientist. I am an expert in dozens of sciences. By definition that makes me a scientist. IQ = 158. More intelligent than 99.99% of the population.

You, on the other hand, are a member of a crackpot retarded doomsday cult. Just like Jim Jones, Charles Manson, David Koresh, Shoko Asahara, etc,etc...

You and your ilk continuously preach an insane religious belief that says the world is going to end in some crazy hellfire doomsday scenario caused by a trace gas known as carbon dioxide that makes up a hell of a lot less than one fucking percent of the fucking atmosphere.

You're a SADFI.

Retards can claim anything on anonymous forums, as you are demonstrating.

Your unsupported claims are utterly meaningless. The proof is in what you say here.

Your posts consistently demonstrate very low intelligence, enormous ignorance about everything but especially science, multiple delusions, and insane crackpot conspiracy theories.

You are definitely a rightwingnut retard, severely afflicted by the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

Can you give an example of one of those "conspiracy theories"? Or are you just fucked up in the head? Or what?

You don't know anything about science at all. Your posts prove that you cannot think logically, DAN.

So tell us, little retard, how DO you explain this without recourse to crackpot conspiracy theories about all of the world's scientists? Please tell us.

.Scientific opinion on climate change
Wikipedia - The Free Encyclopedia

This article is about scientific consensus on the current climate change, or global warming.

Global mean land-ocean temperature change since 1880, relative to the 19511980 mean. The black line is the annual mean and the red line is the 5-year running mean. Source: NASA/GISS


The temperature record of the past 2000 years from several different proxy methods.

The scientific opinion on climate change is the overall judgment among scientists regarding whether global warming is occurring, and (if so) its causes and probable consequences. This scientific opinion is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these respected reports and surveys.[1]

The scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (meaning 95% probability or higher) that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels. In addition, it is likely that some potential further greenhouse gas warming has been offset by increased aerosols.[2][3][4][5]

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on global warming. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report stated that:

* Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[6]

* Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[7]

* Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale.[8] Some of the effects in temperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative.[8] Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming.[8]

* The range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time.[9]* The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global changedrivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources).[10]

Some scientific bodies have recommended specific policies to governments and science can play a role in informing an effective response to climate change. Policy decisions, however, may require value judgements and so are not included in the scientific opinion.[11][12]

No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points.
The last national or international scientific body to drop dissent was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[13] which in 2007 [14] updated its statement to its current non-committal position.[15] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.

 

[Muhammed]

I would bet 1000:1 odds that you don't even know who the hell Wang is. You are not a scientist. I am a scientist. You are a nutjob.

You are not a scientist. You are a nutjob. Truth!

Nobody cares about your crackpot denier cult myths, MuMu.

Actually I am a scientist. I am an expert in dozens of sciences. By definition that makes me a scientist. IQ = 158. More intelligent than 99.99% of the population.

You, on the other hand, are a member of a crackpot retarded doomsday cult. Just like Jim Jones, Charles Manson, David Koresh, Shoko Asahara, etc,etc...

You and your ilk continuously preach an insane religious belief that says the world is going to end in some crazy hellfire doomsday scenario caused by a trace gas known as carbon dioxide that makes up a hell of a lot less than one fucking percent of the fucking atmosphere.

You're a SADFI.

Retards can claim anything on anonymous forums, as you are demonstrating.

Your unsupported claims are utterly meaningless. The proof is in what you say here.

Your posts consistently demonstrate very low intelligence, enormous ignorance about everything but especially science, multiple delusions, and insane crackpot conspiracy theories.

You are definitely a rightwingnut retard, severely afflicted by the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

Can you give an example of one of those "conspiracy theories"? Or are you just fucked up in the head? Or what?

You don't know anything about science at all. Your posts prove that you cannot think logically, DAN.

So tell us, little retard, how DO you explain this without recourse to crackpot conspiracy theories about all of the world's scientists? Please tell us.

.Scientific opinion on climate change
Wikipedia - The Free Encyclopedia

I an not a Wikidiot like you, therefore I am not interested in your ridiculous link.

 

[RollingThunder]

You are not a scientist. You are a nutjob. Truth!

Nobody cares about your crackpot denier cult myths, MuMu.

Actually I am a scientist. I am an expert in dozens of sciences. By definition that makes me a scientist. IQ = 158. More intelligent than 99.99% of the population.

You, on the other hand, are a member of a crackpot retarded doomsday cult. Just like Jim Jones, Charles Manson, David Koresh, Shoko Asahara, etc,etc...

You and your ilk continuously preach an insane religious belief that says the world is going to end in some crazy hellfire doomsday scenario caused by a trace gas known as carbon dioxide that makes up a hell of a lot less than one fucking percent of the fucking atmosphere.

You're a SADFI.

Retards can claim anything on anonymous forums, as you are demonstrating.

Your unsupported claims are utterly meaningless. The proof is in what you say here.

Your posts consistently demonstrate very low intelligence, enormous ignorance about everything but especially science, multiple delusions, and insane crackpot conspiracy theories.

You are definitely a rightwingnut retard, severely afflicted by the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

Can you give an example of one of those "conspiracy theories"? Or are you just fucked up in the head? Or what?

You don't know anything about science at all. Your posts prove that you cannot think logically, DAN.

So tell us, little retard, how DO you explain this without recourse to crackpot conspiracy theories about all of the world's scientists? Please tell us.

.Scientific opinion on climate change
Wikipedia - The Free Encyclopedia

I an not a Wikidiot like you, therefore I am not interested in your ridiculous link.

No, you're a denier cult retard who is in deep denial about the scientifically confirmed facts about human caused global warming and its consequent climate disruptions and changes.

And....you didn't answer my question, little retard.

So tell us, little retard, how DO you explain this (the well established scientific consensus detailed in that Wikipedia article - and many, many other places) without recourse to crackpot conspiracy theories about all of the world's scientists? Please tell us.

 

[Muhammed]

Wow! Your large bold letters are impressive.

 

[jc456]

Bullshit.

FEB 2016 was not the warmest.

Last August was much warmer.

Wrong! You are the one posting "bullshit".

NOAA - The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for August 2015 was 0.88°C (1.58°F) above the 20th century average of 15.6°C (60.1°F) and the highest August in the 136-year record.

The NASA data shows that February had a global average surface temperature of 1.35 degrees Celsius above the 1951 to 1980 average, or 2.43 degrees Fahrenheit above average.

Monthly global average surface temperatures, with Feb. 2016 indicated. - IMAGE: NASA GISS

too funny. how many data stations are they looking at and how many adjustments?

It is wildly hilarious that an ignorant retard like you, JustCrazy, imagines that you are in any way qualified to criticize NASA's scientific studies of the climate.....and that you cling to your crackpot conspiracy theories about all of the world's climate scientists plotting to fool you.....you are SUCH a nutjob!

No, I never said I was more qualified, that's just you projecting. I merely asked you for how many stations worldwide that data was from. I see you can't say, so I can't count it as global then.

 

[RollingThunder]

No, you're a denier cult retard who is in deep denial about the scientifically confirmed facts about human caused global warming and its consequent climate disruptions and changes.

And....you didn't answer my question, little retard.

So tell us, little retard, how DO you explain this (the well established scientific consensus detailed in that Wikipedia article - and many, many other places) without recourse to crackpot conspiracy theories about all of the world's scientists? Please tell us.

Wow! Your large bold letters are impressive.

Wow! Your continued refusal to answer the question, even after two repititions, is very telling!

Take another shot at it, little wacko.

So tell us, little retard, how DO you explain this (the well established scientific consensus detailed in that Wikipedia article - and many, many other places) without recourse to crackpot conspiracy theories about all of the world's scientists? Please tell us.

Scientific opinion on climate change
Wikipedia - The Free Encyclopedia


And BTW, your obsession with the size of other people's fonts probably has a lot to do with your obsession over your own very tiny penis.

 

[Old Rocks]

Wow! Your large bold letters are impressive.

158 IQ and you cannot present a cogent argument for your position? Or a link to an article in a peer reviewed scientific journal supporting your argument? Hmmmmm...........................................................

 

[Muhammed]

Wow! Your large bold letters are impressive.

158 IQ and you cannot present a cogent argument for your position? Or a link to an article in a peer reviewed scientific journal supporting your argument? Hmmmmm...........................................................

Liar.

 

[RollingThunder]

Wow! Your large bold letters are impressive.

158 IQ and you cannot present a cogent argument for your position? Or a link to an article in a peer reviewed scientific journal supporting your argument? Hmmmmm...........................................................

Liar.

Vacuous!

LOLOLOLOL

Also....PATHETIC!!!

Try to answer the very clear question, bozo.

So tell us, little retard, how DO you explain this (the well established scientific consensus detailed in that Wikipedia article - and many, many other places) without recourse to crackpot conspiracy theories about all of the world's scientists? Please tell us.

Scientific opinion on climate change
Wikipedia - The Free Encyclopedia

 

[elektra]

Wow! Your large bold letters are impressive.

158 IQ and you cannot present a cogent argument for your position? Or a link to an article in a peer reviewed scientific journal supporting your argument? Hmmmmm...........................................................

Liar.

Vacuous!

LOLOLOLOL

Also....PATHETIC!!!

Try to answer the very clear question, bozo.

So tell us, little retard, how DO you explain this (the well established scientific consensus detailed in that Wikipedia article - and many, many other places) without recourse to crackpot conspiracy theories about all of the world's scientists? Please tell us.

Scientific opinion on climate change
Wikipedia - The Free Encyclopedia

???? It just dictates that human causes warming? It also dictates that there is consensus, is there not a simple list of those who state there is and those who state they are against?

Or how about an actual number of people who agree versus who disagree?

Is there even a total number of those who are scientist.

And why or how come it does not state how they came to their conclusions?

 

[RollingThunder]

I used to wonder why the really wacky conspiracy theorists were such a major part of this anti-science AGW-denial cult-like movement that the fossil fuel industry propagandists astro-turfed up to be their 'useful idiot' foot-soldiers in their campaign to deceive the public about the reality and dangers of anthropogenic global warming/climate changes and the urgent need to drastically restrict future carbon emissions.....now we know....someone did a bit of research that demonstrated a clear link between AGW denial and a general belief in the usual crackpot conspiracy theories, like the moon landings were faked....the really, really hilarious thing about that is that the AGW deniers immediately claimed that the study itself was part of a conspiracy against them.

Link Between Climate Denial and Conspiracy Beliefs Sparks Conspiracy Theories
LiveScience
By Stephanie Pappas, LiveScience Senior Writer
Sep 7, 2012
(excerpts)
A study suggesting climate change deniers also tend to hold general beliefs in conspiracy theories has sparked accusations of a conspiracy on climate change-denial blogs. The research, which will be published in an upcoming issue of the journal Psychological Science, surveyed more than 1,000 readers of science blogs regarding their beliefs regarding global warming. The results revealed that people who tend to believe in a wide array of conspiracy theories are more likely to reject the scientific consensus that the Earth is heating up. University of Western Australia psychologist Stephan Lewandowsky based the findings on responses from an online survey posted on eight science blogs. According to the paper, Lewandowsky approached five climate-skeptic blogs and asked them to post the survey link, but none did. Now, climate-skeptic bloggers are striking back with a new conspiracy theory: that the researchers deliberately failed to contact "real skeptics" for the study and then lied about it.

Though about 97 percent of working scientists agree that the evidence shows a warming trend caused by humans, public understanding of climate change falls along political lines. Democrats are more likely to "believe in" global warming than Republicans, according to a 2011 report by the University of New Hampshire's Carsey Institute. In fact, deniers and skeptics who felt more confident in their climate-change knowledge were the strongest disbelievers. Believing that climate change isn't happening or that it's not human-caused requires a belief that thousands of climate scientists around the world are lying outright, Lewandowsky and his colleagues wrote in their new paper. Conspiracy theory beliefs are known to come in clusters — someone who thinks NASA faked the moon landing is more likely to accept the theory that 9/11 was an inside job, for example. So Lewandowsky and his colleagues created an online survey and asked eight mostly pro-science blogs and five climate-skeptic blogs to post a link to the survey for their readers. The respondents were self-selecting, but highly motivated to care about climate science, the researchers noted. The responses came only from the eight pro-science blogs, the researchers reported. Of 1,145 usable survey responses, the researchers found that support for free-market, laissez-faire economics was linked to a rejection of climate change. A tendency to believe other conspiracy theories was also linked to denial of climate change. Finally, climate-change deniers were more likely than others to say that other environmental problems have been solved, indicating a dismissive attitude toward "green" causes. "To our knowledge, our results are the first to provide empirical evidence for the correlation between a general construct of conspiracist ideation and the general tendency to reject well-founded science," Lewandowsky and his colleagues concluded. Psychological research has found that conspiracy beliefs are hard to dislodge, they wrote, but efforts to debunk multiple lines of conspiratorial reasoning at once may help.

Copyright © 2012 - TechMediaNetwork.com - All rights reserved.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)[/QUOTE]

 

[Muhammed]

Wow! Your large bold letters are impressive.

158 IQ and you cannot present a cogent argument for your position? Or a link to an article in a peer reviewed scientific journal supporting your argument? Hmmmmm...........................................................

Liar.

Vacuous!

LOLOLOLOL

Also....PATHETIC!!!

Try to answer the very clear question, bozo.

So tell us, little retard, how DO you explain this (the well established scientific consensus detailed in that Wikipedia article - and many, many other places) without recourse to crackpot conspiracy theories about all of the world's scientists? Please tell us.

Scientific opinion on climate change
Wikipedia - The Free Encyclopedia

???? It just dictates that human causes warming? It also dictates that there is consensus, is there not a simple list of those who state there is and those who state they are against?

Or how about an actual number of people who agree versus who disagree?

Is there even a total number of those who are scientist.

And why or how come it does not state how they came to their conclusions?

Oh look!

More large, bold and colorful letters. And C&P.

It must take a lot of research to learn how to do that.