NOAA Hottest Year on Record: 1997 62F

[CrusaderFrank]

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

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

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

Stop lying!

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

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

 

[Billy_Bob]

We've been in a 2 decade pause since then

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

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

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

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

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

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

This crap is so disgusting..

 

[edthecynic]

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

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

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

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

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

NO. Stop playing dumb.

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

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

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

 

[Billy_Bob]

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

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

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

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

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

NO. Stop playing dumb.

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

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

They seem to miss that point quite often..

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

 

[edthecynic]

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

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

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

Stop lying!

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

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

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

From your own graphic in the OP:

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

 

[Billy_Bob]

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

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

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

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

NO. Stop playing dumb.

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

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

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

Your talking apples and oranges here ..

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

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

Comparing these two is like comparing apples to oranges..

 

[Billy_Bob]

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

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

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

Stop lying!

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

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

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

From your own graphic in the OP:

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

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

 

[edthecynic]

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

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

Stop lying!

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

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

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

From your own graphic in the OP:

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

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

BULLSHIT!

 

[edthecynic]

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

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

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

NO. Stop playing dumb.

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

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

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

Your talking apples and oranges here ..

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

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

Comparing these two is like comparing apples to oranges..

BULLSHIT!

 

[edthecynic]

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

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

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

 

[jon_berzerk]

We've been in a 2 decade pause since then

well that isnt what the models said

--LOL

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

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

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

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

NO. Stop playing dumb.

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

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

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

So baseline affects thermometer readings?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

 

[edthecynic]

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

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

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

NO. Stop playing dumb.

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

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

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

So baseline affects thermometer readings?

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

 

[edthecynic]

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

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

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

NO. Stop playing dumb.

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

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

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

So baseline affects thermometer readings?

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

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

 

[edthecynic]

NO. Stop playing dumb.

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

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

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

So baseline affects thermometer readings?

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

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

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

From your OP:

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

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

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

So baseline affects thermometer readings?

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

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

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

From your OP:

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

You still think that anomalies overwrite average temperature

 

[edthecynic]

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

So baseline affects thermometer readings?

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

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

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

From your OP:

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

You still think that anomalies overwrite average temperature

That is YOUR lie, not mine.