Seems awful cold for the "hottest" year on record

This, once again, is looking at weather and regional conditions rather than global temperature trends.
And the reason why you shouldn't really py attention to Chris and his alarmism are these reports that show a whole host of problems with the data collection.

Control for Weather Quality Reporter
Do you actually have any data from CWOP showing this "host of problems"? You suggesting that the existence of this site means there are a host of problems in weather data is not just akin to those who used the VAERS entries to condemn COVID vaccines but jumping to that conclusion simply because VAERS existed. QC is a crucial function of any project and it's what you employ to fix your problems, not hide them.
 
Last edited:
I still laugh about the global warming last year in Copenhagen. Which never sees snow in December, got frozen solid.
Green Bay, Wisconsin, a famous winter ice box, got one snow this last winter that lasted more than a day.

Unusually cold weather in Copenhagen might well be due to the slowing of the AMOC and the Gulfstream which is taking place due to increased Arctic ice melt.

A better idea in these discussions is to mind the global numbers. There is wide variation across the planet and seasonally. The planet still holds regions averaging well below freezing and other places over 100F. If we want to cherry pick, we can probably find whatever we want. Use the global anomaly. A doctor's not going to have success at diagnosis if they only look at your left ring finger.
 
Last edited:
Yep it sure is the hottest year ever...for sure!
10 degrees above the average temperature every day? If the average is 70 degrees, that does mean there are temperatures on that day that are above that average and below that average.

We can easily find a temperature that is reported as, 10 degrees below the average for that day. Cause you know, the average is in the middle.
 
I wonder if people understand how widespread weather station data errors are.
Why don't you show us some evidence of that instead of simply assuming the case.
The IPCC and other organizations want the wealthy nations to pay trillions of dollars but no one is willing to put an audit together to find and correct simple mistakes
That is blatantly untrue. Weather station data is heavily monitored and verified.
let alone reanalyze the massive data massaging done at several different stages of temperature collection
That was the precise intent of the Berkely Earth project and they were widely lauded by climate deniers when they started. But when they finished and concluded that the collection, processing and analysis of NOAA, NASA, NWS, Hadley, UEA, JMA and all the rest were all being done correctly, deniers shit the bed and claimed conspiracy. Berkely Earth's data almost precisely matched the data everyone else has been presenting.
1719322963981.png

I won't go as far as to say GIGO (garbage in , garbage out) but mistakes made throughout the process add up to very large uncertainties at the end result.
What mistakes?
 
It is so funny, NOAA addressing averages. As if they go up every year, or decade.
NOAA did not exist in 1880. To compare today, to then, you would have to compare the exact weather stations that existed in 1880 under the exact same conditions. That we can not do because the original weather stations have not existed for over a century.
A shame, they could not have simply kept using those good old fashion mercury temperature gauges.
 
It is so funny, NOAA addressing averages. As if they go up every year, or decade.
NOAA did not exist in 1880. To compare today, to then, you would have to compare the exact weather stations that existed in 1880 under the exact same conditions. That we can not do because the original weather stations have not existed for over a century.
A shame, they could not have simply kept using those good old fashion mercury temperature gauges.
There are a few that are still operational, albeit with modern equipment. The one at Rutgers that I worked on way back when is still working after 125 plus years.

Original location too!
 
My scientific mind focuses on consistency
Why do you think you need the same weather stations in the same locations? Obviously, all the original equipment isn't available. What is needed are the locations and calibration values of all the equipment used at different stations between 1850 and now. And, as I've stated here a couple times, the location of weather stations is an input into the calculations, so there is no need for data from the same locations.
 
Why do you think you need the same weather stations in the same locations?
So we are comparing apples to apples. Not apples to oranges.
Either way, trying to figure out if the climate will change in the future is a huge waste of money. Especially considering the Heavy Manufacturing that the believers somehow thing can change the climate back to what they think it should be.
 
Why don't you show us some evidence of that instead of simply assuming the case.

That is blatantly untrue. Weather station data is heavily monitored and verified.

That was the precise intent of the Berkely Earth project and they were widely lauded by climate deniers when they started. But when they finished and concluded that the collection, processing and analysis of NOAA, NASA, NWS, Hadley, UEA, JMA and all the rest were all being done correctly, deniers shit the bed and claimed conspiracy. Berkely Earth's data almost precisely matched the data everyone else has been presenting.
View attachment 967182

What mistakes?
Why are you replying to a 14 year old post?
 
Green Bay, Wisconsin, a famous winter ice box, got one snow this last winter that lasted more than a day.

Unusually cold weather in Copenhagen might well be due to the slowing of the AMOC and the Gulfstream which is taking place due to increased Arctic ice melt.

A better idea in these discussions is to mind the global numbers. There is wide variation across the planet and seasonally. The planet still holds regions averaging well below freezing and other places over 100F. If we want to cherry pick, we can probably find whatever we want. Use the global anomaly. A doctor's not going to have success at diagnosis if they only look at your left ring finger.
Considering that the entire global warming hoax community ignores the fact that the planet is still 2C colder than the previous interglacial period, their entire dataset is cherry picked.
 
No, global warming is a hoax because it isn't happening any longer as the climatologists know. Hence the name change. Climate change is real, but climate ALWAYS changes.

What is also known is mankind has no impact on it.
1719413745880.png
 

Forum List

Back
Top