The Hottest Day in History Just Occurred

[jc456]

But we have an excellent idea of what the hottest day in recent history was.

no we don't.

 

[leftwinger]

"Hottest day in human history over the whole globe" is not "weather", dumbass.

STUFF Happens:

 

[jc456]

Wrong. It was the hottest day in recorded history.

I acknowledge no such historical record exists for an entire globe.

 

[mamooth]

STUFF Happens:

Sweet Jeebus, just how many iterations of the "DERP! Climate changed naturally before, so humans can't change climate! DERP!" fallacy are we going to get?

Come on, deniers, come up with some new idiot material.

 

[marvin martian]

Sweet Jeebus, just how many iterations of the "DERP! Climate changed naturally before, so humans can't change climate! DERP!" fallacy are we going to get?

Come on, deniers, come up with some new idiot material.

Until you can provide an answer about past heat cycles, we'll keep pointing out your creepy weather-panic religious nuttery.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Climate Reanalyzer

climatereanalyzer.org

The hottest day in history just occurred. The global average temperature was 17.18C, the hottest in the historical record.

Discuss.

Does this mean global warming is very real, and the rational people have been spot-on correct for the past 40 years? Yes.

Does this mean the denier cultists have been laughably wrong for the past decade? Yes.

If you want to put forth a "DERP! DERP! ALL THE DATA IS FAKED! DEEEEERRRRRRP!" conspiracy as a way to run from the hard data, you have to back it up, with something more than a link to a kook conspiracy website. Explain it in your own words, then link to primary data sources. If you won't, that's an admission you're making it all up.

If you'd like to claim the warming is all-natural, provide evidence for that. Don't just claim it. Back it up.

Needless to say, trolls will be instantly reported. Mods, please don't reward trolls by moving a thread to the Rubber Room after trolls overwhelm it, as the trolls always attempt to do.

I thought it was "Climate change"?

 

[jc456]

I thought it was "Climate change"?

Frank, I have climate change everyday here, it changes over 15 degrees a day over the course of the day. And we don't have any issues with our lives.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Precisely how did they measure global average temperature in the Middle Ages? In the Stone Age?

View attachment 801742

Accurate to 1/10 of a degree (+ or - 2F)

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank, I have climate change everyday here, it changes over 15 degrees a day over the course of the day. And we don't have any issues with our lives.

In December it was 7F, today its going to be 83F....how can the human race survive these insane, manmade temperature swings??

 

[Crick]

Here is the un-reviewed Anthony Watts study on which your Heartland article is based: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://heartland.org/wp-content/uploads/documents/2022_Surface_Station_Report.pdf

And an actual peer-reviewed study conducted and written by climate scientists, in response to Watts 2009 "study" coming to a slightly different conclusion.

Earth Atmospheric Land Surface Temperature and Station Quality in the Contiguous United States
Richard A Muller, Jonathan Wurtele, Robert Rohde, Robert Jacobsen, Saul Perlmutter, Arthur Rosenfeld, Judith Curry, Donald Groom, Charlotte Wickham and Steven Mosher
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://static.berkeleyearth.org/papers/Station-Quality.pdf

Abstract
A survey organized by A. Watts has thrown doubt on the usefulness of historic thermometer data in analyzing the record of global warming. That survey found that 70% of the USHCN temperature stations had potential temperature biases from 2°C to 5°C, large compared to the estimated global warming (1956 to 2005) of 0.64 ± 0.13°C. In the current paper we study this issue with two approaches. The first is a simple histogram study of temperature trends in groupings of stations based on Watt’s survey of station quality. This approach suffers from uneven sampling of the United States; its main value is in illustrating aspects of the data that are counter-intuitive and surprising. The second approach is more statistically rigorous, and consists of a more detailed temperature reconstruction performed using the Berkeley Earth analysis method indicates that the difference in temperature change rate between Poor (quality groups 4, 5) and OK (quality groups 1, 2, 3) stations is not statistically significant at the 95% confidence level. The absence of a statistically significant difference indicates that these networks of stations can reliably discern temperature trends even when individual stations have nominally poor quality rankings. This result suggests that the estimates of systematic uncertainty were overly “conservative” and that changes in temperature can be deduced even with poorly rated sites.

 

[jc456]

And an actual peer-reviewed study conducted and written by climate scientists, in response to Watts 2009 "study" coming to a slightly different conclusion.

Earth Atmospheric Land Surface Temperature and Station Quality in the Contiguous United States
Richard A Muller, Jonathan Wurtele, Robert Rohde, Robert Jacobsen, Saul Perlmutter, Arthur Rosenfeld, Judith Curry, Donald Groom, Charlotte Wickham and Steven Mosher
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://static.berkeleyearth.org/papers/Station-Quality.pdf

Abstract
A survey organized by A. Watts has thrown doubt on the usefulness of historic thermometer data in analyzing the record of global warming. That survey found that 70% of the USHCN temperature stations had potential temperature biases from 2°C to 5°C, large compared to the estimated global warming (1956 to 2005) of 0.64 ± 0.13°C. In the current paper we study this issue with two approaches. The first is a simple histogram study of temperature trends in groupings of stations based on Watt’s survey of station quality. This approach suffers from uneven sampling of the United States; its main value is in illustrating aspects of the data that are counter-intuitive and surprising. The second approach is more statistically rigorous, and consists of a more detailed temperature reconstruction performed using the Berkeley Earth analysis method indicates that the difference in temperature change rate between Poor (quality groups 4, 5) and OK (quality groups 1, 2, 3) stations is not statistically significant at the 95% confidence level. The absence of a statistically significant difference indicates that these networks of stations can reliably discern temperature trends even when individual stations have nominally poor quality rankings. This result suggests that the estimates of systematic uncertainty were overly “conservative” and that changes in temperature can be deduced even with poorly rated sites.

Now link to the debate they had with Watts to review with him their disagreement?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The facts make it science.

You know, the facts that you're desperately trying to deflect from.

People don't have to do that when the facts back them up. You do feel a need to do that. Why?

That's one of the great things about being a liberal. We don't have to troll and deflect. To "win", we just point at reality, so we don't end up looking lying delusional cult imbeciles.

And you can show how increasing CO2 from 280 to 400PPM drives these record setting temperatures? What? No?

 

[jotathought]

the recorded history is less then 150 years old, so it was not actually the hottest in history at all. Further most temperature stations are now in heat sinks so give unnaturally higher readings and that was planned to justify the lie that the earth is unnaturally warming.

Exactly .. how about the millions of other years and multiple cycles of heat and cold?

 

[marvin martian]

Exactly .. how about the millions of other years and multiple cycles of heat and cold?

That, like, doesn't count...or something. Science, man!

 

[jotathought]

That, like, doesn't count...or something. Science, man!

Yes .. because 2023 is the hottest year ever!! Even though they can only go back 150 years ..

 

[Crick]

Yes .. because 2023 is the hottest year ever!! Even though they can only go back 150 years ..

The problem is that neither of you two know what the fuck you're talking about. From the OP: " The global average temperature was 17.18C, the hottest in the historical record."

 

[marvin martian]

The problem is that neither of you two know what the fuck you're talking about. From the OP: " The global average temperature was 17.18C, the hottest in the historical record."

And? As we've pointed out to you weather-panic religious loons, the "historical record" is 150 years long. It's a blip.

 

[jotathought]

The problem is that neither of you two know what the fuck you're talking about. From the OP: " The global average temperature was 17.18C, the hottest in the historical record."

So the evidence about NOAA standard violations is wrong? Because Crick said so?

 

[Crick]

So the evidence about NOAA standard violations is wrong? Because Crick said so?

You've got your threads confused. Yesterday and the day before were the hottest days in recorded history, not the hottest days since the beginning of time.

Anthony Watts obsession regarding weather station conditions was refuted years back by the paper I presented and many others. He's not a climate scientist. The people who write for his site aren't climate scientists. There's plenty of actual science on the climate. Why don't you try reading that instead of crap like Watts?

 

[BackAgain]

And how do you measure temperature when there is no instrument data? What is your superior method?

I didn’t say I have one. What I asked was which proxies were utilized. How reliable/accurate are they? Are they accurate to within four degree? Five?

And please spell out specifically what is wrong with using computers to do reanalysis?

I am not one who said anything about using computers. You are confused.

If it requires the presupposition that the scientists involved want to lie to us from the start, then we will need evidence of that.

No. It doesn’t.

Do you have the testimony of an involved scientist exposing the conspiracy?

Please feel obliged to cite any post where I claimed “conspiracy” as to proxy data.

Go.