Scientists are floored by what’s happening in the Arctic right now

[flacaltenn]

Those are an example of how the 20th Century CHANGES on monthly and even daily basis.

You can set new RECORDS -- just by changing the baseline. EVEN IF you call ALL OF THEM "a 20th Century" baseline.
And they you can put it all more correctly the next week -- after the press releases go out and you've done job scaring people... Can't follow the game unless you know how "history is constantly being rewritten"..

 

[flacaltenn]

From your dishonest link:

In that 1997 report, they say clearly that the Global Average Temperature (GAT) was 62.45°F, based on a 30-year average (1961-1990) of the combined land and sea surface temperatures.

During 2015, the average temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 1.62°F (0.90°C) above the 20th century average.

It was blogger Wattsupwiththat who first noticed and explained the funky math. He explains that the recent report compares 2015 to the 20th century average - but, doesn't mention what that average temperature was.

However, it does give a 20th Century average in its November 2015 State of the Climate Report: - 13.9 degrees Celsius (57 degrees Fahrenheit):

Global Analysis - Annual 2015 | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

The annual temperature anomalies for 1997 and 1998 were 0.51°C (0.92°F) and 0.63°C (1.13°F), respectively, above the 20th century average

Would be GREAT if you knew WHEN the baseline average mattered. In your 1st claim --- GAT= 62.45degF -- there IS no baseline involved because ----------------------- It's NOT an ANOMALY, it's an actual temperature average.

And your LAST statement of anomalies for 1997 and 1998 don't state what baseline was being subtracted to GET an anomaly. I think you're a bit confused as to when it matters..

Actually you add, not subtract the baseline temperature, which WAS given, so it is YOU who are confused. I made it bigger and bold in the earlier post so you can't miss it this time, but you probably will anyway!

This is the problem with deniers, they pretend not only to be know-it-alls, they claim they know more than even the real scientists!

The link from the post I replied to explains everything, but obviously you understood nothing. The link explains exactly how to derive the temperature from the anomaly in detail, including showing you the math. They do the math for 2015, but dishonestly do not do it for 1997 knowing the deniers they are deliberately deceiving are both too stupid and too lazy to do it themselves for 1997 so they are comparing data using the same baseline.

I will post the math they did on their link for 2015 and then do the same thing for 1997 that you were too lazy to do yourself.

NOAA Butchers Math in Report Claiming 2015 Was Hottest Year Ever

Now, it's math time:

1. According to NOAA, the global average temperature for the 20th century was 57 degrees Fahrenheit.
2. And the 2015 average was 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit above that average.
3. In other words, according to this recent NOAA report, 2015 was the hottest year ever at 58.62 degrees Fahrenheit (57+1.62).
4. And, that 1997 NOAA report states 1997 had an average global temperature of 62.45 degrees.

And now it is time for the truth using the same 20th Century average for 1997.

1. According to NOAA, the global average temperature for the 20th century was 57 degrees Fahrenheit.
2. And the 1997 average was 0.92 degrees Fahrenheit above that average.
3. In other words, according to this recent WUWT report, 1997 was the hottest year ever at 57.92 degrees Fahrenheit (57+0.92) when using the same baseline.
4. Therefore when comparing the data using the same baseline WUWT wants you suckers to believe 57.92 is greater than 58.62

1. In other words, according to this recent NOAA report, 2015 was the hottest year ever at 58.62 degrees Fahrenheit (57+1.62).
2. And, that 1997 NOAA report states 1997 had an average global temperature of 62.45 degrees.

dude, excuse me, but you're still arguing that 58 is greater than 62. It states hottest year ever, not hottest century. I think you need to reread what you posted.

And some day, never, you'll convince someone other than a warmer that 58 > 62. Funny shit my man.

The argument here is simply that NASA/NOAA wanted a BIGGER SCARIER sounding "anomaly".. So they shifted from 30 year traveling means to using an ENTIRE CENTURY mean as the baseline.

Fact is -- IF they are on separate baselines YOU CANNOT compare them,. PERIOD -- end of discussion.. Even if NASA tries to do so..

Just like the satellite anomalies are NOT directly comparable because their baseline average starts at the beginning of the satellite record in 1979..

Not my fault they tend to obfuscate this simple math. Take NOTE tho.. Every time NASA/NOAA makes an ADJUSTMENT to ancient temp records from the 1920s or 1940s -- THEY ARE CHANGING THE BASELINE...
No shit Sherlock --- the 20th Century Baseline Average is not really static. Even tho we're not in that century any more. It CHANGES with the daily "fiddling" to the older records.. So suit up --- get a clue and play harder.

did you mean that for me? I was talking to Ed. I asked Ed to prove how 58 >62 for a yearly average temperature. I never mentioned baselines.

Yeah -- actually I did. Because you can't really understand the argument unless you understand how baselines are made and how they are manipulated..

 

[jc456]

Would be GREAT if you knew WHEN the baseline average mattered. In your 1st claim --- GAT= 62.45degF -- there IS no baseline involved because ----------------------- It's NOT an ANOMALY, it's an actual temperature average.

And your LAST statement of anomalies for 1997 and 1998 don't state what baseline was being subtracted to GET an anomaly. I think you're a bit confused as to when it matters..

Actually you add, not subtract the baseline temperature, which WAS given, so it is YOU who are confused. I made it bigger and bold in the earlier post so you can't miss it this time, but you probably will anyway!

This is the problem with deniers, they pretend not only to be know-it-alls, they claim they know more than even the real scientists!

The link from the post I replied to explains everything, but obviously you understood nothing. The link explains exactly how to derive the temperature from the anomaly in detail, including showing you the math. They do the math for 2015, but dishonestly do not do it for 1997 knowing the deniers they are deliberately deceiving are both too stupid and too lazy to do it themselves for 1997 so they are comparing data using the same baseline.

I will post the math they did on their link for 2015 and then do the same thing for 1997 that you were too lazy to do yourself.

NOAA Butchers Math in Report Claiming 2015 Was Hottest Year Ever

Now, it's math time:

1. According to NOAA, the global average temperature for the 20th century was 57 degrees Fahrenheit.
2. And the 2015 average was 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit above that average.
3. In other words, according to this recent NOAA report, 2015 was the hottest year ever at 58.62 degrees Fahrenheit (57+1.62).
4. And, that 1997 NOAA report states 1997 had an average global temperature of 62.45 degrees.

And now it is time for the truth using the same 20th Century average for 1997.

1. According to NOAA, the global average temperature for the 20th century was 57 degrees Fahrenheit.
2. And the 1997 average was 0.92 degrees Fahrenheit above that average.
3. In other words, according to this recent WUWT report, 1997 was the hottest year ever at 57.92 degrees Fahrenheit (57+0.92) when using the same baseline.
4. Therefore when comparing the data using the same baseline WUWT wants you suckers to believe 57.92 is greater than 58.62

1. In other words, according to this recent NOAA report, 2015 was the hottest year ever at 58.62 degrees Fahrenheit (57+1.62).
2. And, that 1997 NOAA report states 1997 had an average global temperature of 62.45 degrees.

dude, excuse me, but you're still arguing that 58 is greater than 62. It states hottest year ever, not hottest century. I think you need to reread what you posted.

And some day, never, you'll convince someone other than a warmer that 58 > 62. Funny shit my man.

The argument here is simply that NASA/NOAA wanted a BIGGER SCARIER sounding "anomaly".. So they shifted from 30 year traveling means to using an ENTIRE CENTURY mean as the baseline.

Fact is -- IF they are on separate baselines YOU CANNOT compare them,. PERIOD -- end of discussion.. Even if NASA tries to do so..

Just like the satellite anomalies are NOT directly comparable because their baseline average starts at the beginning of the satellite record in 1979..

Not my fault they tend to obfuscate this simple math. Take NOTE tho.. Every time NASA/NOAA makes an ADJUSTMENT to ancient temp records from the 1920s or 1940s -- THEY ARE CHANGING THE BASELINE...
No shit Sherlock --- the 20th Century Baseline Average is not really static. Even tho we're not in that century any more. It CHANGES with the daily "fiddling" to the older records.. So suit up --- get a clue and play harder.

did you mean that for me? I was talking to Ed. I asked Ed to prove how 58 >62 for a yearly average temperature. I never mentioned baselines.

Yeah -- actually I did. Because you can't really understand the argument unless you understand how baselines are made and how they are manipulated..

ok, just making sure. Still 58 is not > than 62. baseline or no baseline. Unless someone can prove that.

 

[mamooth]

Which means -- AND PAY ATTENTION HERE -- that NASA/NOAA can FUDGE a new high MONTHLY RECORD by going back and cooling the 1940s and thus changing the 20th century baseline.

Well, I suppose in somebody's fantasy world that's possible, but back in the real world, the reverse happened, which shoots down that conspiracy theory.

Now, can we get away from all these desperate denier evasions and get back to the record-breaking heat in the Arctic?

I just looked at the forecast on

Climate Reanalyzer

It will be relatively hot in the Arctic for the next week. So, not much sea ice forming. Cold in Siberia and Canada, but that won't matter.

However, a cold snap hits the southeast USA. Deniers, you know what to do. Use that cold snap to deflect. Don't let it worry you that you didn't mention the recent warmth in the same area, as you're deniers, so nobody expects consistency from you.

 

[flacaltenn]

Which means -- AND PAY ATTENTION HERE -- that NASA/NOAA can FUDGE a new high MONTHLY RECORD by going back and cooling the 1940s and thus changing the 20th century baseline.

Well, I suppose in somebody's fantasy world that's possible, but back in the real world, the reverse happened, which shoots down that conspiracy theory.

Now, can we get away from all these desperate denier evasions and get back to the record-breaking heat in the Arctic?

I just looked at the forecast on

Climate Reanalyzer

It will be relatively hot in the Arctic for the next week. So, not much sea ice forming. Cold in Siberia and Canada, but that won't matter.

However, a cold snap hits the southeast USA. Deniers, you know what to do. Use that cold snap to deflect. Don't let it worry you that you didn't mention the recent warmth in the same area, as you're deniers, so nobody expects consistency from you.

No SquidWard --- the 20th Century BASELINE normalizer is changing EVERY DAY at NASA/NOAA.. The REST of your post is just noise..
The fudging is endless.. They can't even leave 60 year old temperature alone.

Thanks for the arctic weather forecast.. You really should learn the diff between weather and climate. And for that matter -- so should NOAA..

 

[Billy_Bob]

NOAA Butchers Math in Report Claiming 2015 Was Hottest Year Ever

From your dishonest link:

In that 1997 report, they say clearly that the Global Average Temperature (GAT) was 62.45°F, based on a 30-year average (1961-1990) of the combined land and sea surface temperatures.

During 2015, the average temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 1.62°F (0.90°C) above the 20th century average.

It was blogger Wattsupwiththat who first noticed and explained the funky math. He explains that the recent report compares 2015 to the 20th century average - but, doesn't mention what that average temperature was.

However, it does give a 20th Century average in its November 2015 State of the Climate Report: - 13.9 degrees Celsius (57 degrees Fahrenheit):

Global Analysis - Annual 2015 | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

The annual temperature anomalies for 1997 and 1998 were 0.51°C (0.92°F) and 0.63°C (1.13°F), respectively, above the 20th century average

Would be GREAT if you knew WHEN the baseline average mattered. In your 1st claim --- GAT= 62.45degF -- there IS no baseline involved because ----------------------- It's NOT an ANOMALY, it's an actual temperature average.

And your LAST statement of anomalies for 1997 and 1998 don't state what baseline was being subtracted to GET an anomaly. I think you're a bit confused as to when it matters..

Actually you add, not subtract the baseline temperature, which WAS given, so it is YOU who are confused. I made it bigger and bold in the earlier post so you can't miss it this time, but you probably will anyway!

This is the problem with deniers, they pretend not only to be know-it-alls, they claim they know more than even the real scientists!

The link from the post I replied to explains everything, but obviously you understood nothing. The link explains exactly how to derive the temperature from the anomaly in detail, including showing you the math. They do the math for 2015, but dishonestly do not do it for 1997 knowing the deniers they are deliberately deceiving are both too stupid and too lazy to do it themselves for 1997 so they are comparing data using the same baseline.

I will post the math they did on their link for 2015 and then do the same thing for 1997 that you were too lazy to do yourself.

NOAA Butchers Math in Report Claiming 2015 Was Hottest Year Ever

Now, it's math time:

1. According to NOAA, the global average temperature for the 20th century was 57 degrees Fahrenheit.
2. And the 2015 average was 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit above that average.
3. In other words, according to this recent NOAA report, 2015 was the hottest year ever at 58.62 degrees Fahrenheit (57+1.62).
4. And, that 1997 NOAA report states 1997 had an average global temperature of 62.45 degrees.

And now it is time for the truth using the same 20th Century average for 1997.

1. According to NOAA, the global average temperature for the 20th century was 57 degrees Fahrenheit.
2. And the 1997 average was 0.92 degrees Fahrenheit above that average.
3. In other words, according to this recent WUWT report, 1997 was the hottest year ever at 57.92 degrees Fahrenheit (57+0.92) when using the same baseline.
4. Therefore when comparing the data using the same baseline WUWT wants you suckers to believe 57.92 is greater than 58.62

1. In other words, according to this recent NOAA report, 2015 was the hottest year ever at 58.62 degrees Fahrenheit (57+1.62).
2. And, that 1997 NOAA report states 1997 had an average global temperature of 62.45 degrees.

dude, excuse me, but you're still arguing that 58 is greater than 62. It states hottest year ever, not hottest century. I think you need to reread what you posted.

And some day, never, you'll convince someone other than a warmer that 58 > 62. Funny shit my man.

The argument here is simply that NASA/NOAA wanted a BIGGER SCARIER sounding "anomaly".. So they shifted from 30 year traveling means to using an ENTIRE CENTURY mean as the baseline.

Fact is -- IF they are on separate baselines YOU CANNOT compare them,. PERIOD -- end of discussion.. Even if NASA tries to do so..

Just like the satellite anomalies are NOT directly comparable because their baseline average starts at the beginning of the satellite record in 1979..

Not my fault they tend to obfuscate this simple math. Take NOTE tho.. Every time NASA/NOAA makes an ADJUSTMENT to ancient temp records from the 1920s or 1940s -- THEY ARE CHANGING THE BASELINE...
No shit Sherlock --- the 20th Century Baseline Average is not really static. Even tho we're not in that century any more. It CHANGES with the daily "fiddling" to the older records.. So suit up --- get a clue and play harder.

Thank You, Thank You, Thank You...



They just cant figure it out..

 

[RollingThunder]

toiletpaper://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/graph4b.pn
Those are an example of how the 20th Century CHANGES on monthly and even daily basis.
You can set new RECORDS -- just by changing the baseline. EVEN IF you call ALL OF THEM "a 20th Century" baseline.
And they you can put it all more correctly the next week -- after the press releases go out and you've done job scaring people... Can't follow the game unless you know how "history is constantly being rewritten"..

LOLOLOL.......so, all you've got going to support your demented denial of the scientifically confirmed reality of human caused global warming/climate changes, after all this time fecalhead, is still nothing but some extremely insane crackpot conspiracy theories involving virtually all of the climate scientists on the planet, from many different countries and political and economic systems, somehow secretly plotting to 'fudge' the data about global warming to create an illusion of warming (and somehow persuading all of that ice to melt too - wow, they're good) without even a single one of them ever breaking their 'code of silence' and spilling the beans about the conspiracy.....the Mafia must be green with envy over that feat.....LOLOLOL.....you denier cult nutbaggers are so hilarious! And the fact that you are far too retarded to even have the mental capacity to realize how utterly insane your deranged twaddle sounds, just makes it even funnier. No wonder you morons support the T'Rump.

 

[RollingThunder]

Here is what is actually happening in the Arctic now....the lowest winter sea ice extent for January on record.

Arctic Sea Ice Hits New January Low
The extent of sea ice in winter is diminishing, just as it is in summer
Scientific American
By Margaret Kriz Hobson, ClimateWire
February 11, 2016
Unusually high air temperatures over the Arctic Ocean and a strong negative atmospheric circulation in the region caused Arctic sea ice to shrink to the lowest level ever recorded by satellite for the month of January, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

Arctic sea ice extended an average of 5.2 million square miles in January, which was 35,000 square miles less than the previous low in January 2011.

NSIDC scientist Julienne Stroeve said that the sea ice extent could continue to remain low this month as Arctic temperatures stay above normal. Arctic sea ice levels usually peak in late February or early March.

The ice center described January as “a remarkably warm month,” with Arctic air temperatures reaching 13 degrees Fahrenheit above average across most of the Arctic Ocean.

Scientists say the higher temperatures are likely related to a strongly negative Arctic Oscillation, an atmospheric circulation pattern in which the atmospheric pressure over the polar region flows opposite of that over mid-latitudes. Those patterns can affect weather in locations thousands of miles away from the Arctic, including Europe and North America.

Those factors caused unusually sparse sea ice levels in the Barents, Kara and East Greenland seas in the northern Atlantic Ocean region. Ice conditions were also below average in the Bering Sea southwest of Alaska and the Sea of Okhotsk along Russia’s southeastern coast.

Lower ice levels were also reported in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, an important habitat for harp seals along Canada’s southeastern coast.

However, Stroeve said low sea ice levels in January do not necessarily signal an early breakup of Arctic Ocean sea ice. That change will be determined by future weather patterns and ice thickness.

The record-low January sea ice extent continued a historic trend that has seen ice declining by 3.2 percent per decade from 1979 through this year, the report said.

The Arctic warmed at a record pace during 2015, according to a December analysis by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (ClimateWire, Dec. 16, 2015).

The average air temperature in the region was about 2.3 F above average between October 2014 and September 2015—the highest level chronicled since records began in 1900.

Last winter, the maximum sea ice extent in the Arctic Ocean was the lowest on record and occurred two weeks earlier than average. Meanwhile, June snow cover in the North American Arctic was the second-lowest since satellite studies began in 1978.

The report noted that surface temperatures in all regions of the Arctic Ocean are increasing, with areas like the Chukchi Sea witnessing nearly 1 F of temperature rise per decade.

 

[edthecynic]

From your dishonest link:

In that 1997 report, they say clearly that the Global Average Temperature (GAT) was 62.45°F, based on a 30-year average (1961-1990) of the combined land and sea surface temperatures.

During 2015, the average temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 1.62°F (0.90°C) above the 20th century average.

It was blogger Wattsupwiththat who first noticed and explained the funky math. He explains that the recent report compares 2015 to the 20th century average - but, doesn't mention what that average temperature was.

However, it does give a 20th Century average in its November 2015 State of the Climate Report: - 13.9 degrees Celsius (57 degrees Fahrenheit):

Global Analysis - Annual 2015 | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

The annual temperature anomalies for 1997 and 1998 were 0.51°C (0.92°F) and 0.63°C (1.13°F), respectively, above the 20th century average

Would be GREAT if you knew WHEN the baseline average mattered. In your 1st claim --- GAT= 62.45degF -- there IS no baseline involved because ----------------------- It's NOT an ANOMALY, it's an actual temperature average.

And your LAST statement of anomalies for 1997 and 1998 don't state what baseline was being subtracted to GET an anomaly. I think you're a bit confused as to when it matters..

Actually you add, not subtract the baseline temperature, which WAS given, so it is YOU who are confused. I made it bigger and bold in the earlier post so you can't miss it this time, but you probably will anyway!

This is the problem with deniers, they pretend not only to be know-it-alls, they claim they know more than even the real scientists!

The link from the post I replied to explains everything, but obviously you understood nothing. The link explains exactly how to derive the temperature from the anomaly in detail, including showing you the math. They do the math for 2015, but dishonestly do not do it for 1997 knowing the deniers they are deliberately deceiving are both too stupid and too lazy to do it themselves for 1997 so they are comparing data using the same baseline.

I will post the math they did on their link for 2015 and then do the same thing for 1997 that you were too lazy to do yourself.

NOAA Butchers Math in Report Claiming 2015 Was Hottest Year Ever

Now, it's math time:

1. According to NOAA, the global average temperature for the 20th century was 57 degrees Fahrenheit.
2. And the 2015 average was 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit above that average.
3. In other words, according to this recent NOAA report, 2015 was the hottest year ever at 58.62 degrees Fahrenheit (57+1.62).
4. And, that 1997 NOAA report states 1997 had an average global temperature of 62.45 degrees.

And now it is time for the truth using the same 20th Century average for 1997.

1. According to NOAA, the global average temperature for the 20th century was 57 degrees Fahrenheit.
2. And the 1997 average was 0.92 degrees Fahrenheit above that average.
3. In other words, according to this recent WUWT report, 1997 was the hottest year ever at 57.92 degrees Fahrenheit (57+0.92) when using the same baseline.
4. Therefore when comparing the data using the same baseline WUWT wants you suckers to believe 57.92 is greater than 58.62

Nuh uh.. I'm not confused.. Tell the folks at home what you ADD to the average temperature to get the anomaly.

For example -- the ACTUAL GMASTemp is 60.45234 degF and the BASELINE AVERAGE (whatever period it is over is 58.19324698.. Show me the addition to get an "anomaly" in the single digit range. Like 2.11946.

Go back and read the part of my post YOU BOLDED.. I was correct in what I said. YOU just have difficulties recognizing how many ways some equation can be stated. It's embarrassing for you to quibble like that. Makes folks not want to deal with the pettiness..

Not only are you confused, you are ass backwards. You don't add anything to get the anomaly, we are not solving for the anomaly we are solving for temperature BTW, you add the anomaly to the baseline temperature just as WUWT showed you. They were right about that part, they were dishonest about comparing a temperature from a 30 year baseline to a temperature from a 100 year baseline. Honest people would have used a 30 year baseline for both or a 100 year baseline for both, and none of your attempts to muddy the waters will make the denier's source any less dishonest.

So let me get this straight. You agree that they misrepresented the data....and blame people who point it out...for pointing it out?

I agree with you that WUWT and MRC deliberately misrepresented the data, but I am the one who pointed it out and I certainly don't blame myself for your stupidity in swallowing their lies.

 

[edthecynic]

NOAA Butchers Math in Report Claiming 2015 Was Hottest Year Ever

From your dishonest link:

In that 1997 report, they say clearly that the Global Average Temperature (GAT) was 62.45°F, based on a 30-year average (1961-1990) of the combined land and sea surface temperatures.

During 2015, the average temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 1.62°F (0.90°C) above the 20th century average.

It was blogger Wattsupwiththat who first noticed and explained the funky math. He explains that the recent report compares 2015 to the 20th century average - but, doesn't mention what that average temperature was.

However, it does give a 20th Century average in its November 2015 State of the Climate Report: - 13.9 degrees Celsius (57 degrees Fahrenheit):

Global Analysis - Annual 2015 | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

The annual temperature anomalies for 1997 and 1998 were 0.51°C (0.92°F) and 0.63°C (1.13°F), respectively, above the 20th century average

Would be GREAT if you knew WHEN the baseline average mattered. In your 1st claim --- GAT= 62.45degF -- there IS no baseline involved because ----------------------- It's NOT an ANOMALY, it's an actual temperature average.

And your LAST statement of anomalies for 1997 and 1998 don't state what baseline was being subtracted to GET an anomaly. I think you're a bit confused as to when it matters..

Actually you add, not subtract the baseline temperature, which WAS given, so it is YOU who are confused. I made it bigger and bold in the earlier post so you can't miss it this time, but you probably will anyway!

This is the problem with deniers, they pretend not only to be know-it-alls, they claim they know more than even the real scientists!

The link from the post I replied to explains everything, but obviously you understood nothing. The link explains exactly how to derive the temperature from the anomaly in detail, including showing you the math. They do the math for 2015, but dishonestly do not do it for 1997 knowing the deniers they are deliberately deceiving are both too stupid and too lazy to do it themselves for 1997 so they are comparing data using the same baseline.

I will post the math they did on their link for 2015 and then do the same thing for 1997 that you were too lazy to do yourself.

NOAA Butchers Math in Report Claiming 2015 Was Hottest Year Ever

Now, it's math time:

1. According to NOAA, the global average temperature for the 20th century was 57 degrees Fahrenheit.
2. And the 2015 average was 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit above that average.
3. In other words, according to this recent NOAA report, 2015 was the hottest year ever at 58.62 degrees Fahrenheit (57+1.62).
4. And, that 1997 NOAA report states 1997 had an average global temperature of 62.45 degrees.

And now it is time for the truth using the same 20th Century average for 1997.

1. According to NOAA, the global average temperature for the 20th century was 57 degrees Fahrenheit.
2. And the 1997 average was 0.92 degrees Fahrenheit above that average.
3. In other words, according to this recent WUWT report, 1997 was the hottest year ever at 57.92 degrees Fahrenheit (57+0.92) when using the same baseline.
4. Therefore when comparing the data using the same baseline WUWT wants you suckers to believe 57.92 is greater than 58.62

1. In other words, according to this recent NOAA report, 2015 was the hottest year ever at 58.62 degrees Fahrenheit (57+1.62).
2. And, that 1997 NOAA report states 1997 had an average global temperature of 62.45 degrees.

dude, excuse me, but you're still arguing that 58 is greater than 62. It states hottest year ever, not hottest century. I think you need to reread what you posted.

And some day, never, you'll convince someone other than a warmer that 58 > 62. Funny shit my man.

Again the deniers play dumb so they can repeat their lies. Using the same century baseline for 1997 as WUWT used for 2015, 1997 was NOT 62.45 degrees but was 57.92 degrees which is clearly less than 58.62 degrees to everyone but lying deniers.

 

[flacaltenn]

toiletpaper://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/graph4b.pn
Those are an example of how the 20th Century CHANGES on monthly and even daily basis.
You can set new RECORDS -- just by changing the baseline. EVEN IF you call ALL OF THEM "a 20th Century" baseline.
And they you can put it all more correctly the next week -- after the press releases go out and you've done job scaring people... Can't follow the game unless you know how "history is constantly being rewritten"..

LOLOLOL.......so, all you've got going to support your demented denial of the scientifically confirmed reality of human caused global warming/climate changes, after all this time fecalhead, is still nothing but some extremely insane crackpot conspiracy theories involving virtually all of the climate scientists on the planet, from many different countries and political and economic systems, somehow secretly plotting to 'fudge' the data about global warming to create an illusion of warming (and somehow persuading all of that ice to melt too - wow, they're good) without even a single one of them ever breaking their 'code of silence' and spilling the beans about the conspiracy.....the Mafia must be green with envy over that feat.....LOLOLOL.....you denier cult nutbaggers are so hilarious! And the fact that you are far too retarded to even have the mental capacity to realize how utterly insane your deranged twaddle sounds, just makes it even funnier. No wonder you morons support the T'Rump.

Not a conspiracy. Those adjustments are available.. Like the chart from my post that you deleted. Because you're a feckless mental retard. And without changing any RECENT data -- they can boost a monthly record for next March by adjusting data back in 1938 and thus temporarily changing the baseline average by the 0.06degC they needed to make the Press Release. And then NEXT APRIL -- set all that data BACK to something more accurate.

Thus they have a quite a cute mechanism for CREATING new Records by 0.06degC -- even when the absolute temperatures don't cooperate.

 

[flacaltenn]

Would be GREAT if you knew WHEN the baseline average mattered. In your 1st claim --- GAT= 62.45degF -- there IS no baseline involved because ----------------------- It's NOT an ANOMALY, it's an actual temperature average.

And your LAST statement of anomalies for 1997 and 1998 don't state what baseline was being subtracted to GET an anomaly. I think you're a bit confused as to when it matters..

Actually you add, not subtract the baseline temperature, which WAS given, so it is YOU who are confused. I made it bigger and bold in the earlier post so you can't miss it this time, but you probably will anyway!

This is the problem with deniers, they pretend not only to be know-it-alls, they claim they know more than even the real scientists!

The link from the post I replied to explains everything, but obviously you understood nothing. The link explains exactly how to derive the temperature from the anomaly in detail, including showing you the math. They do the math for 2015, but dishonestly do not do it for 1997 knowing the deniers they are deliberately deceiving are both too stupid and too lazy to do it themselves for 1997 so they are comparing data using the same baseline.

I will post the math they did on their link for 2015 and then do the same thing for 1997 that you were too lazy to do yourself.

NOAA Butchers Math in Report Claiming 2015 Was Hottest Year Ever

Now, it's math time:

1. According to NOAA, the global average temperature for the 20th century was 57 degrees Fahrenheit.
2. And the 2015 average was 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit above that average.
3. In other words, according to this recent NOAA report, 2015 was the hottest year ever at 58.62 degrees Fahrenheit (57+1.62).
4. And, that 1997 NOAA report states 1997 had an average global temperature of 62.45 degrees.

And now it is time for the truth using the same 20th Century average for 1997.

1. According to NOAA, the global average temperature for the 20th century was 57 degrees Fahrenheit.
2. And the 1997 average was 0.92 degrees Fahrenheit above that average.
3. In other words, according to this recent WUWT report, 1997 was the hottest year ever at 57.92 degrees Fahrenheit (57+0.92) when using the same baseline.
4. Therefore when comparing the data using the same baseline WUWT wants you suckers to believe 57.92 is greater than 58.62

Nuh uh.. I'm not confused.. Tell the folks at home what you ADD to the average temperature to get the anomaly.

For example -- the ACTUAL GMASTemp is 60.45234 degF and the BASELINE AVERAGE (whatever period it is over is 58.19324698.. Show me the addition to get an "anomaly" in the single digit range. Like 2.11946.

Go back and read the part of my post YOU BOLDED.. I was correct in what I said. YOU just have difficulties recognizing how many ways some equation can be stated. It's embarrassing for you to quibble like that. Makes folks not want to deal with the pettiness..

Not only are you confused, you are ass backwards. You don't add anything to get the anomaly, we are not solving for the anomaly we are solving for temperature BTW, you add the anomaly to the baseline temperature just as WUWT showed you. They were right about that part, they were dishonest about comparing a temperature from a 30 year baseline to a temperature from a 100 year baseline. Honest people would have used a 30 year baseline for both or a 100 year baseline for both, and none of your attempts to muddy the waters will make the denier's source any less dishonest.

So let me get this straight. You agree that they misrepresented the data....and blame people who point it out...for pointing it out?

I agree with you that WUWT and MRC deliberately misrepresented the data, but I am the one who pointed it out and I certainly don't blame myself for your stupidity in swallowing their lies.

You missed the magic trick didn't ya? Got all tied with 1st year algebra manipulations. There IS NO static 20th century baseline average that NOAA/NASA won't change tomorrow and the next day. THUS -- It's hard to know from looking at a plot of a particular anomaly set -- what the ABSOLUTE temperatures really were unless you keep a running total of all the daily, weekly, monthly adjustments to data in the previous Century.. And the effect of these many adjustments on the 20th Century baseline.

You need to step up the game. You MIGHT FIND that WUWT actually has CAUGHT these creeps manipulating the baseline in order to CREATE new records... NAWWWW -- that would never happen..

 

[9aces]

NOAA Butchers Math in Report Claiming 2015 Was Hottest Year Ever

From your dishonest link:

In that 1997 report, they say clearly that the Global Average Temperature (GAT) was 62.45°F, based on a 30-year average (1961-1990) of the combined land and sea surface temperatures.

During 2015, the average temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 1.62°F (0.90°C) above the 20th century average.

It was blogger Wattsupwiththat who first noticed and explained the funky math. He explains that the recent report compares 2015 to the 20th century average - but, doesn't mention what that average temperature was.

However, it does give a 20th Century average in its November 2015 State of the Climate Report: - 13.9 degrees Celsius (57 degrees Fahrenheit):

Global Analysis - Annual 2015 | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

The annual temperature anomalies for 1997 and 1998 were 0.51°C (0.92°F) and 0.63°C (1.13°F), respectively, above the 20th century average

Would be GREAT if you knew WHEN the baseline average mattered. In your 1st claim --- GAT= 62.45degF -- there IS no baseline involved because ----------------------- It's NOT an ANOMALY, it's an actual temperature average.

And your LAST statement of anomalies for 1997 and 1998 don't state what baseline was being subtracted to GET an anomaly. I think you're a bit confused as to when it matters..

Actually you add, not subtract the baseline temperature, which WAS given, so it is YOU who are confused. I made it bigger and bold in the earlier post so you can't miss it this time, but you probably will anyway!

This is the problem with deniers, they pretend not only to be know-it-alls, they claim they know more than even the real scientists!

The link from the post I replied to explains everything, but obviously you understood nothing. The link explains exactly how to derive the temperature from the anomaly in detail, including showing you the math. They do the math for 2015, but dishonestly do not do it for 1997 knowing the deniers they are deliberately deceiving are both too stupid and too lazy to do it themselves for 1997 so they are comparing data using the same baseline.

I will post the math they did on their link for 2015 and then do the same thing for 1997 that you were too lazy to do yourself.

NOAA Butchers Math in Report Claiming 2015 Was Hottest Year Ever

Now, it's math time:

1. According to NOAA, the global average temperature for the 20th century was 57 degrees Fahrenheit.
2. And the 2015 average was 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit above that average.
3. In other words, according to this recent NOAA report, 2015 was the hottest year ever at 58.62 degrees Fahrenheit (57+1.62).
4. And, that 1997 NOAA report states 1997 had an average global temperature of 62.45 degrees.

And now it is time for the truth using the same 20th Century average for 1997.

1. According to NOAA, the global average temperature for the 20th century was 57 degrees Fahrenheit.
2. And the 1997 average was 0.92 degrees Fahrenheit above that average.
3. In other words, according to this recent WUWT report, 1997 was the hottest year ever at 57.92 degrees Fahrenheit (57+0.92) when using the same baseline.
4. Therefore when comparing the data using the same baseline WUWT wants you suckers to believe 57.92 is greater than 58.62

1. In other words, according to this recent NOAA report, 2015 was the hottest year ever at 58.62 degrees Fahrenheit (57+1.62).
2. And, that 1997 NOAA report states 1997 had an average global temperature of 62.45 degrees.

dude, excuse me, but you're still arguing that 58 is greater than 62. It states hottest year ever, not hottest century. I think you need to reread what you posted.

And some day, never, you'll convince someone other than a warmer that 58 > 62. Funny shit my man.

Again the deniers play dumb so they can repeat their lies. Using the same century baseline for 1997 as WUWT used for 2015, 1997 was NOT 62.45 degrees but was 57.92 degrees which is clearly less than 58.62 degrees to everyone but lying deniers.

Can you actually keep all the "updates for accuracy" straight? Your warmer enthusiasts are so busy adjusting baselines, updating numbers, and just flat not having a clue who is using what numbers today I would imagine it's a nightmare to try and come up with a coherent argument.

 

[edthecynic]

The argument here is simply that NASA/NOAA wanted a BIGGER SCARIER sounding "anomaly".. So they shifted from 30 year traveling means to using an ENTIRE CENTURY mean as the baseline.

Fact is -- IF they are on separate baselines YOU CANNOT compare them,. PERIOD -- end of discussion.. Even if NASA tries to do so..

Your first red statement is just an out and out lie, scientists shifted to a 100 year century average from a 30 year average because 100 years yields a more accurate trend.

And your second red statement is a lie you were programmed to spew by your MessiahRushie, see the first quote in my sig, where you accuse NASA of doing what I caught WUWT and MRC doing. It was WUWT who used the 30 year baseline for 1997 and the 100 year baseline for 2015. Nasa used the same 100 year baseline for both 1997 and 2015 when they stated that 2015 was the warmest year in the history of direct instrument measurement.

As you can clearly see NOAA used the 20th century average for every comparison they made, so there is no excuse for the dishonest lying scum at WUWT and MRC for using the 30 year average for 1997 and the 20th century average for 2015.
But I'm sure you will continue to make excuses for their lying.

Global Analysis - Annual 2015 | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

Global Temperatures
The State of the Climate November 2015 report noted that in order for 2015 to not become the warmest year in the 136-year period of record, the December global temperature would have to be at least 0.81°C (1.46°F) below the 20th century average—or 0.24°C (0.43°F) colder than the current record low December temperature of 1916. In fact, December 2015 was the warmest month of any month in the period of record, at 1.11°C (2.00°F) higher than the monthly average, breaking the previous all-time record set just two months ago in October 2015 by 0.12°C (0.21°F). This is the first time in the NOAA record that a monthly temperature departure from average exceeded 1°C or reached 2°F and the second widest margin by which an all-time monthly global temperature record has been broken. (February 1998 broke the previous record of March 1990 by 0.13°C / 0.23°F.)

With the contribution of such record warmth at year's end and with 10 months of the year record warm for their respective months, including the last 8 (January was second warmest for January and April was third warmest), the average global temperature across land and ocean surface areas for 2015 was 0.90°C (1.62°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F), beating the previous record warmth of 2014 by 0.16°C (0.29°F). This is not only the highest calendar year temperature, but also the highest temperature for any 12-month period on record. The global temperatures in 2015 were strongly influenced by strong El Niño conditions that developed during the year.

The 2015 temperature also marks the largest margin by which an annual temperature record has been broken. Prior to this year, the largest margin occurred in 1998, when the annual temperature surpassed the record set in 1997 by 0.12°C (0.22°F). Incidentally, 1997 and 1998 were the last years in which a similarly strong El Niño was occurring. The annual temperature anomalies for 1997 and 1998 were 0.51°C (0.92°F) and 0.63°C (1.13°F), respectively, above the 20th century average, both well below the 2015 temperature departure.

This marks the fourth time in the 21st century a new record high annual temperature has been set (along with 2005, 2010, and 2014) and also marks the 39th consecutive year (since 1977) that the annual temperature has been above the 20th century average. To date, including 2015, 15 of the 16 warmest years on record have occurred during the 21st century. 1998 is currently tied with 2009 as the sixth warmest year on record.

 

[edthecynic]

You missed the magic trick didn't ya? Got all tied with 1st year algebra manipulations. There IS NO static 20th century baseline average that NOAA/NASA won't change tomorrow and the next day. THUS -- It's hard to know from looking at a plot of a particular anomaly set -- what the ABSOLUTE temperatures really were unless you keep a running total of all the daily, weekly, monthly adjustments to data in the previous Century.. And the effect of these many adjustments on the 20th Century baseline.

Hogwash, the 20th century baseline average uses the SAME 100 years of the 20th century because the 100 years on the 20th century never change, unlike the 30 year baseline which could just as easily be from 1961 to 1990 as from 1971 to 2000 as from 1981 to 2010.

 

[edthecynic]

Those are an example of how the 20th Century CHANGES on monthly and even daily basis.

You can set new RECORDS -- just by changing the baseline. EVEN IF you call ALL OF THEM "a 20th Century" baseline.
And they you can put it all more correctly the next week -- after the press releases go out and you've done job scaring people... Can't follow the game unless you know how "history is constantly being rewritten"..

2010 to 2012 are the 21st (twentyFIRST century), they have NO effect on the 20th century!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[edthecynic]

From your dishonest link:

In that 1997 report, they say clearly that the Global Average Temperature (GAT) was 62.45°F, based on a 30-year average (1961-1990) of the combined land and sea surface temperatures.

During 2015, the average temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 1.62°F (0.90°C) above the 20th century average.

It was blogger Wattsupwiththat who first noticed and explained the funky math. He explains that the recent report compares 2015 to the 20th century average - but, doesn't mention what that average temperature was.

However, it does give a 20th Century average in its November 2015 State of the Climate Report: - 13.9 degrees Celsius (57 degrees Fahrenheit):

Global Analysis - Annual 2015 | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

The annual temperature anomalies for 1997 and 1998 were 0.51°C (0.92°F) and 0.63°C (1.13°F), respectively, above the 20th century average

Would be GREAT if you knew WHEN the baseline average mattered. In your 1st claim --- GAT= 62.45degF -- there IS no baseline involved because ----------------------- It's NOT an ANOMALY, it's an actual temperature average.

And your LAST statement of anomalies for 1997 and 1998 don't state what baseline was being subtracted to GET an anomaly. I think you're a bit confused as to when it matters..

Actually you add, not subtract the baseline temperature, which WAS given, so it is YOU who are confused. I made it bigger and bold in the earlier post so you can't miss it this time, but you probably will anyway!

This is the problem with deniers, they pretend not only to be know-it-alls, they claim they know more than even the real scientists!

The link from the post I replied to explains everything, but obviously you understood nothing. The link explains exactly how to derive the temperature from the anomaly in detail, including showing you the math. They do the math for 2015, but dishonestly do not do it for 1997 knowing the deniers they are deliberately deceiving are both too stupid and too lazy to do it themselves for 1997 so they are comparing data using the same baseline.

I will post the math they did on their link for 2015 and then do the same thing for 1997 that you were too lazy to do yourself.

NOAA Butchers Math in Report Claiming 2015 Was Hottest Year Ever

Now, it's math time:

1. According to NOAA, the global average temperature for the 20th century was 57 degrees Fahrenheit.
2. And the 2015 average was 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit above that average.
3. In other words, according to this recent NOAA report, 2015 was the hottest year ever at 58.62 degrees Fahrenheit (57+1.62).
4. And, that 1997 NOAA report states 1997 had an average global temperature of 62.45 degrees.

And now it is time for the truth using the same 20th Century average for 1997.

1. According to NOAA, the global average temperature for the 20th century was 57 degrees Fahrenheit.
2. And the 1997 average was 0.92 degrees Fahrenheit above that average.
3. In other words, according to this recent WUWT report, 1997 was the hottest year ever at 57.92 degrees Fahrenheit (57+0.92) when using the same baseline.
4. Therefore when comparing the data using the same baseline WUWT wants you suckers to believe 57.92 is greater than 58.62

1. In other words, according to this recent NOAA report, 2015 was the hottest year ever at 58.62 degrees Fahrenheit (57+1.62).
2. And, that 1997 NOAA report states 1997 had an average global temperature of 62.45 degrees.

dude, excuse me, but you're still arguing that 58 is greater than 62. It states hottest year ever, not hottest century. I think you need to reread what you posted.

And some day, never, you'll convince someone other than a warmer that 58 > 62. Funny shit my man.

Again the deniers play dumb so they can repeat their lies. Using the same century baseline for 1997 as WUWT used for 2015, 1997 was NOT 62.45 degrees but was 57.92 degrees which is clearly less than 58.62 degrees to everyone but lying deniers.

Can you actually keep all the "updates for accuracy" straight? Your warmer enthusiasts are so busy adjusting baselines, updating numbers, and just flat not having a clue who is using what numbers today I would imagine it's a nightmare to try and come up with a coherent argument.

Deniers literally hate accurate data as all their lies depend on the most inaccurate data the deniers can manufacture.

 

[9aces]

Would be GREAT if you knew WHEN the baseline average mattered. In your 1st claim --- GAT= 62.45degF -- there IS no baseline involved because ----------------------- It's NOT an ANOMALY, it's an actual temperature average.

And your LAST statement of anomalies for 1997 and 1998 don't state what baseline was being subtracted to GET an anomaly. I think you're a bit confused as to when it matters..

Actually you add, not subtract the baseline temperature, which WAS given, so it is YOU who are confused. I made it bigger and bold in the earlier post so you can't miss it this time, but you probably will anyway!

This is the problem with deniers, they pretend not only to be know-it-alls, they claim they know more than even the real scientists!

The link from the post I replied to explains everything, but obviously you understood nothing. The link explains exactly how to derive the temperature from the anomaly in detail, including showing you the math. They do the math for 2015, but dishonestly do not do it for 1997 knowing the deniers they are deliberately deceiving are both too stupid and too lazy to do it themselves for 1997 so they are comparing data using the same baseline.

I will post the math they did on their link for 2015 and then do the same thing for 1997 that you were too lazy to do yourself.

NOAA Butchers Math in Report Claiming 2015 Was Hottest Year Ever

Now, it's math time:

1. According to NOAA, the global average temperature for the 20th century was 57 degrees Fahrenheit.
2. And the 2015 average was 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit above that average.
3. In other words, according to this recent NOAA report, 2015 was the hottest year ever at 58.62 degrees Fahrenheit (57+1.62).
4. And, that 1997 NOAA report states 1997 had an average global temperature of 62.45 degrees.

And now it is time for the truth using the same 20th Century average for 1997.

1. According to NOAA, the global average temperature for the 20th century was 57 degrees Fahrenheit.
2. And the 1997 average was 0.92 degrees Fahrenheit above that average.
3. In other words, according to this recent WUWT report, 1997 was the hottest year ever at 57.92 degrees Fahrenheit (57+0.92) when using the same baseline.
4. Therefore when comparing the data using the same baseline WUWT wants you suckers to believe 57.92 is greater than 58.62

1. In other words, according to this recent NOAA report, 2015 was the hottest year ever at 58.62 degrees Fahrenheit (57+1.62).
2. And, that 1997 NOAA report states 1997 had an average global temperature of 62.45 degrees.

dude, excuse me, but you're still arguing that 58 is greater than 62. It states hottest year ever, not hottest century. I think you need to reread what you posted.

And some day, never, you'll convince someone other than a warmer that 58 > 62. Funny shit my man.

Again the deniers play dumb so they can repeat their lies. Using the same century baseline for 1997 as WUWT used for 2015, 1997 was NOT 62.45 degrees but was 57.92 degrees which is clearly less than 58.62 degrees to everyone but lying deniers.

Can you actually keep all the "updates for accuracy" straight? Your warmer enthusiasts are so busy adjusting baselines, updating numbers, and just flat not having a clue who is using what numbers today I would imagine it's a nightmare to try and come up with a coherent argument.

Deniers literally hate accurate data as all their lies depend on the most inaccurate data the deniers can manufacture.

What accurate data? You keep changing it.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Threse threads are so fun to read.

It is amazing how they look like cut and pastes of the last thread on this topic.

Carry on you guys.

I just finished another batch of popcorn.

 

[edthecynic]

Actually you add, not subtract the baseline temperature, which WAS given, so it is YOU who are confused. I made it bigger and bold in the earlier post so you can't miss it this time, but you probably will anyway!

This is the problem with deniers, they pretend not only to be know-it-alls, they claim they know more than even the real scientists!

The link from the post I replied to explains everything, but obviously you understood nothing. The link explains exactly how to derive the temperature from the anomaly in detail, including showing you the math. They do the math for 2015, but dishonestly do not do it for 1997 knowing the deniers they are deliberately deceiving are both too stupid and too lazy to do it themselves for 1997 so they are comparing data using the same baseline.

I will post the math they did on their link for 2015 and then do the same thing for 1997 that you were too lazy to do yourself.

NOAA Butchers Math in Report Claiming 2015 Was Hottest Year Ever

Now, it's math time:

1. According to NOAA, the global average temperature for the 20th century was 57 degrees Fahrenheit.
2. And the 2015 average was 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit above that average.
3. In other words, according to this recent NOAA report, 2015 was the hottest year ever at 58.62 degrees Fahrenheit (57+1.62).
4. And, that 1997 NOAA report states 1997 had an average global temperature of 62.45 degrees.

And now it is time for the truth using the same 20th Century average for 1997.

1. According to NOAA, the global average temperature for the 20th century was 57 degrees Fahrenheit.
2. And the 1997 average was 0.92 degrees Fahrenheit above that average.
3. In other words, according to this recent WUWT report, 1997 was the hottest year ever at 57.92 degrees Fahrenheit (57+0.92) when using the same baseline.
4. Therefore when comparing the data using the same baseline WUWT wants you suckers to believe 57.92 is greater than 58.62

1. In other words, according to this recent NOAA report, 2015 was the hottest year ever at 58.62 degrees Fahrenheit (57+1.62).
2. And, that 1997 NOAA report states 1997 had an average global temperature of 62.45 degrees.

dude, excuse me, but you're still arguing that 58 is greater than 62. It states hottest year ever, not hottest century. I think you need to reread what you posted.

And some day, never, you'll convince someone other than a warmer that 58 > 62. Funny shit my man.

Again the deniers play dumb so they can repeat their lies. Using the same century baseline for 1997 as WUWT used for 2015, 1997 was NOT 62.45 degrees but was 57.92 degrees which is clearly less than 58.62 degrees to everyone but lying deniers.

Can you actually keep all the "updates for accuracy" straight? Your warmer enthusiasts are so busy adjusting baselines, updating numbers, and just flat not having a clue who is using what numbers today I would imagine it's a nightmare to try and come up with a coherent argument.

Deniers literally hate accurate data as all their lies depend on the most inaccurate data the deniers can manufacture.

What accurate data? You keep changing it.

As DEMANDED by you deniers, remember, it was you deniers who demanded that data from poorly sited ground stations be removed from the data. As each poorly cited ground station was removed you deniers then whined that NOAA had changed the data and reduced the number of ground stations.