Old Rocks
Diamond Member
the point i have maintained is that weather is anecdotal but they want to exclude weather data that doesnt support their crapso now weather ISNT anecdotal
nice
but i giuess only the weather that YOU think supports your bullshit
Actually editec is quite correct. And I don't think many people are arguing that there hasn't been a warming trend since the little ice age. The arguing is about how big the contribution is from burning fossil fuels. Some think catastrophe is around the corner and some think natural variation (plus small AGW). I think the earth's natural homeostasis is easily up to dealing with man's folly but others disagree. Who appears to be more correct about the gulf disaster? The doomsayers or the moderates?
and yes,m accumulated data from multiple sources would be useful in determining the temp of the planet as a whole and the way it changes over time
but they want to use a short time frame data to make all time coverage
Hell, no one is excluding weather data. It is simply a fact that the heat records are now exceeding the cold records by a two to one margin. It is not the climatologists that are stating that the data from the satellites is a government conspiracy, it is wingnuts like you, Dive.
Record high temperatures versus record lows
Consider a record daily high to mean that temperatures were warmer on that day than on the same date throughout a weather station's history. As time passes, the number of record high and low temperatures will diminish. This is because as the years roll on and records accumulate, it becomes increasingly difficult to break a record. A new paper (Meehle 2009, see press release) examines the record highs and lows since 1950. Figure 1 shows the number of record high temperatures (red dots) and record low temperatures (blue dots). If temperatures weren't warming, we would expect the number of record highs and lows to be roughly equal. Instead, the highs and lows diverge over time with gradually more record highs than lows.