NOAA Hottest Year on Record: 1997 62F

[CrusaderFrank]

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 This report has been superseded by subsequent analyses.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.

So you agree that the 1997 temperature was 62F

 

[edthecynic]

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 This report has been superseded by subsequent analyses.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.

So you agree that the 1997 temperature was 62F

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

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

 

[ScienceRocks]

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 This report has been superseded by subsequent analyses.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.

So you agree that the 1997 temperature was 62F

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

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

Will 2016 reach 63f?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

So you agree that the 1997 temperature was 62F

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

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

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

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

So you agree that the 1997 temperature was 62F

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

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

Will 2016 reach 63f?

Matt, what's your baseline

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

POT MEET KETTLE...

Look into the mirror...

 

[edthecynic]

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.

So you agree that the 1997 temperature was 62F

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Billy_Bob]

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

 

[edthecynic]

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

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

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

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You still think that anomalies overwrite average temperature

That is YOUR lie, not mine.

So you agree that the 1997 temperature was 62F

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[edthecynic]

That is YOUR lie, not mine.

So you agree that the 1997 temperature was 62F

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Pogo]

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Wyatt earp]

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?

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

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

Thank you for having some common sense please tell the others



.

 

[Pogo]

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?

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

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

Thank you for having some common sense please tell the others

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

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

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

SEEya.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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?

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

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

Thank you for having some common sense please tell the others

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

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

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

SEEya.

Lmfao

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



.

 

[Pogo]

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?

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

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

Thank you for having some common sense please tell the others

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

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

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

SEEya.

Lmfao

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

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

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

 

[Wyatt earp]

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?

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

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

Thank you for having some common sense please tell the others

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

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

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

SEEya.

Lmfao

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

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

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

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

 

[Pogo]

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?

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

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

Thank you for having some common sense please tell the others

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

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

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

SEEya.

Lmfao

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

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

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

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

?

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


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

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So you agree that the 1997 temperature was 62F

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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