What's the temperature, Kenneth

[mamooth]

Can you explain to us how it is ".5C 'warmer'" when no one was keeping records accurate to half a degree in the past

First, people were keeping records that accurate.

Second, you don't need to have individual records that accurate in order for the average to be that accurate. Statistics. If the error of one measurement is +/- 1, the error of the average of a hundred such measurements will be +/- 0.1. Error goes down proportionally to the square root of the number of measurements.

How were the records accurate to .5 degrees when the instruments weren't capable of producing results with that accuracy?

Frank, it's particularly gutless and dishonest of you to ignore the specific answer I just gave to that question. Go read my answer again. If you don't understand what it means, that means you shouldn't be bothering the grownups with your stupid tantrums. The science is not affected at all by your complete inability to understand the most basic concepts.

 

[flacaltenn]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/31/u...action-on-climate-change-poll-finds.html?_r=0

WASHINGTON — An overwhelming majority of the American public, including half of Republicans, support government action to curb global warming, according to a poll conducted by The New York Times, Stanford University and the nonpartisan environmental research group Resources for the Future.

In a finding that could have implications for the 2016 presidential campaign, the poll also found that two-thirds of Americans said they were more likely to vote for political candidates who campaign on fighting climate change. They were less likely to vote for candidates who questioned or denied the science that determined that humans caused global warming.

Continue reading the main story
RELATED COVERAGE

• How the Poll on Global Warming Was ConductedJAN. 30, 2015
• 
  
  2014 Breaks Heat Record, Challenging Global Warming Skeptics JAN. 16, 2015
• 
  
  Political Memo: Why Republicans Keep Telling Everyone They’re Not ScientistsOCT. 30, 2014
• 
  
  Washington Memo: Republicans Vow to Fight E.P.A. and Approve Keystone PipelineNOV. 10, 2014
• Federal Construction Projects Must Plan for Flood Risks From Climate Change JAN. 30, 2015

Among Republicans, 48 percent say they are more likely to vote for a candidate who supports fighting climate change, a result that Jon A. Krosnick, a professor of political science at Stanford University and an author of the survey, called “the most powerful finding” in the poll. Many Republican candidates question the science of climate change or do not publicly address the issue.

Really, Mr. Westwall?

2014 Temperatures "didn't challenge GW skeptics" GoldiRocks. It challenged the ENTIRE CREDIBILITY AND OBJECTIVITY OF NASA.. As you DAMN WELL know -- all those hysterical headlines were walked back a couple days later with statements that NASA only had 38% confidence in that "declaration of warmest"..

I'm getting real tired of you guys recycling the same old RETARDED GW propaganda AFTER it's been scrutinized. That RECORD was by 0.04degC of just the LAND-BASED data -- not satellite. And it's well below the uncertainty of a GLOBAL measurement.

And yes it was dastardly designed as PROPAGANDA and yes the NASA scientists tried to reclaw a FRACTION of their credibility a couple days later when they "clarified" .. They have no CREDIBILITY in their public attempts to panic the herd anymore -- and THAT'S why you eco-frauds are TANKING..

 

[Old Rocks]

If you look back at my posts you will see where I have repeatedly stated that 2014 was one of the four warmest years on record. None of the present measuring methods is complete enough that they can for sure state that any of those years was really warmer than the others. What is significant about 2014 is that it matched 1998, a super El Nino year. In fact, what is worrysome, is that 1998 was a super El Nino, 2005 a strong El Nino, 2010, a moderate El Nino, and 2014, Enso Neutral. This year looks to develop into a strong to super El Nino. Going to be interesting, almost certainly will establish a new benchmark. Then, after that, any year that does not match it, you people can point to and say, "See, I told you it's cooling". LOL.

 

[flacaltenn]

If you look back at my posts you will see where I have repeatedly stated that 2014 was one of the four warmest years on record. None of the present measuring methods is complete enough that they can for sure state that any of those years was really warmer than the others. What is significant about 2014 is that it matched 1998, a super El Nino year. In fact, what is worrysome, is that 1998 was a super El Nino, 2005 a strong El Nino, 2010, a moderate El Nino, and 2014, Enso Neutral. This year looks to develop into a strong to super El Nino. Going to be interesting, almost certainly will establish a new benchmark. Then, after that, any year that does not match it, you people can point to and say, "See, I told you it's cooling". LOL.

Love the way you use the ENSO one way on Tuesday.. And then use it the exact OTHER way on Wednesday..
Yesterday you were telling folks to watch the GW case SOAR when the El Nino kicks in . And now today, you want to chuck the 1998 El Nino OUT --- in order to make a stronger case for 2014.. THAT AIN'T SCIENCE pal.. It's political spin or witchdoctory.. Make up your mind.. In fact -- the ABOVE POST does it ALL in one place !!!!!

You posted a link declaring 2014 the warmest -- WITHOUT the subsequent mea culpa from NASA. Yet YOU KNOW that those morons did that.

 

[flacaltenn]

Does 2014 look like "it matched" the 1998 El Nino from this satellite record?
Who has the BETTER ocean surface air coverage? GISS or RSS and UAH?

To make that case OBJECTIVELY -- you'd have to get a handful of quaaludes from Cosby and stop your subscription to Mother Jones..

 

[Old Rocks]

Annual Mean Temperature Change for Hemispheres

Annual and five-year running mean temperature changes with the base period 1951-1980 for the northern (red) and southern (blue) hemispheres.

Figure also available as PDF, or Postscript, Also available is a table

Annual Mean Temperature Change in the United States

Annual and five-year running mean surface air temperature in the contiguous 48 United States (1.6% of the Earth's surface) relative to the 1951-1980 mean. [This is an update of Plate 6(a) in Hansen et al. (2001). The corresponding graph in Hansen et al. (1999) shows a smaller trend, since it is based on data that were not yet corrected for station moves and time-of-observation changes, see FAQ.]

Also available as PDF, or Postscript. Also available are tabular data.

Data.GISS GISS Surface Temperature Analysis Analysis Graphs and Plots

Here is GISS

 

[Old Rocks]

Global Temperature Anomalies since 1880, with Decadal Averages
(decades are defined as the years xxx0-xxx9)


Temperature Time-Series for land-only, ocean-only, and combined land-and-ocean
(oceans make up roughly two-thirds of the Earth's surface)


Global Surface Temperature, with ten warmest years highlighted in dark red
(courtesy of climate.gov)

Global Surface Temperature: long-term trend and trend since 1998

The Global Surface temperature table with the ten warmest years highlighted in red is especially significant.

 

[flacaltenn]

Global Temperature Anomalies since 1880, with Decadal Averages
(decades are defined as the years xxx0-xxx9)


Temperature Time-Series for land-only, ocean-only, and combined land-and-ocean
(oceans make up roughly two-thirds of the Earth's surface)


Global Surface Temperature, with ten warmest years highlighted in dark red
(courtesy of climate.gov)

Global Surface Temperature: long-term trend and trend since 1998

The Global Surface temperature table with the ten warmest years highlighted in red is especially significant.

What's with all the graphs dude?? The rise is already stipulated and conceded.. The issue is with the PROPAGANDA about year by year "records" that don't actually exist.

In addition --- did you see the note in the upper left of your last graph??

1880 to 2014 TREND is 1.17degF/Century.
1998 to 2014 TREND is 1.04degF/Century

This is where all your hysteria takes the quaalude. The RECENT trend is BELOW the longer trend. (and even that is debatable since we are talking about 0.1degF/Decade and the 1998 to 2014 "trend" is actually about 1/2 of that. Apparently NOAA cant use a calculator or they - LIKE NASA - are fudging.. ))

Point is -- these rates are MUCH closer (actually below) the CO2 ONLY warming that basic Physics predicts WITHOUT all of the Magic Multipliers and Catastrophic feedbacks in your Global Warming theory..

Did ya ABSORB that last statement? EMPIRICAL evidence states that Global Warming hysteria is complete and utter EXAGGERATION and bullshit.

At 1deg/century --- this is a Page 14 story.. And the Cadets at the Coast Guard Academy can do their USUAL jobs -- without the political grandstanding from Obama telling them their mission is Global Warming abatement.

So --- WHEN do all those feedbacks and magic multipliers kick in your theory??? And why are you so panicked. I worry about your heart..

 

[flacaltenn]

PS --- Take your 10 warmest years and REALIZE --- (Think now and look at the charts) --- You take ANY 15 year period from 1910 on and you will find the same 4 or 10 warmest years on record up to those dates.

Did ya ever notice that before? The folks in 1940 must have been COMPLETELY panicked about THEIR 25 almost consecutive warmest years on record.. Dontcha think???

Imagine how frightening that was.. Especially BEFORE GISS started to cool down their records and tell them --- it wasn't really as hot as they measured...

 

[JoeB131]

oh, wow. Dude, I live in Chicago. You must live in the alternate Chicago because temperature and snowfall for the last two years has been well above an average year. They met up with history just this past year in both temperature and snowfall. So you enjoy your alternate city, the real city in the USA had very severe winter weather. the reason in 1970 the streets were not plowed was mostly due to preparedness and availability of plows and salt that are now in abundance. Dude, seriously, go back and continue with your program 'Fringe'.

Hey son, what is the temperature today in Chicago and what is average for today?

Are you on drugs.

Okay, one more time, WEATHER IS NOT CLIMATE!!!

No, the reason why 1978 and 1979 were such bad winters is because we had A SHITLOAD OF SNOW like you just do not see today.

Yes, you had a couple of bad storms here and there, but nothing like that.

 

[Billy_Bob]

oh, wow. Dude, I live in Chicago. You must live in the alternate Chicago because temperature and snowfall for the last two years has been well above an average year. They met up with history just this past year in both temperature and snowfall. So you enjoy your alternate city, the real city in the USA had very severe winter weather. the reason in 1970 the streets were not plowed was mostly due to preparedness and availability of plows and salt that are now in abundance. Dude, seriously, go back and continue with your program 'Fringe'.

Hey son, what is the temperature today in Chicago and what is average for today?

Are you on drugs.

Okay, one more time, WEATHER IS NOT CLIMATE!!!

No, the reason why 1978 and 1979 were such bad winters is because we had A SHITLOAD OF SNOW like you just do not see today.

Yes, you had a couple of bad storms here and there, but nothing like that.

Epic FAIL...

Weather is Climate and inversely Climate is Weather. the only difference is length of time a certain pattern exists.

With high water content this year along with bitter cold being force out of the arctic you will again see a heavy wet snow year. Hang on to your ass. if this El Nino water continues in monsoonal fashion its going to be a banner year.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Global Temperature Anomalies since 1880, with Decadal Averages
(decades are defined as the years xxx0-xxx9)


Temperature Time-Series for land-only, ocean-only, and combined land-and-ocean
(oceans make up roughly two-thirds of the Earth's surface)


Global Surface Temperature, with ten warmest years highlighted in dark red
(courtesy of climate.gov)

Global Surface Temperature: long-term trend and trend since 1998

The Global Surface temperature table with the ten warmest years highlighted in red is especially significant.

Every single one of your graphs is the highly manipulated and manufactured HCN data sets. The satellites show no warming with better than 87% global coverage and yet you use this substandard crap that covers but 27% of the globe..

 

[JoeB131]

That's because none of these proposals reduce pollution. Not in the slightest. Because the renewables are not reliable the fossil fuel powered power plants must be kept spooled up to meet demand so there is no reduction there. The pollution that is created to produce the renewables is thus not offset by the closing of the fossil fuel plants. You choose to look at only the most basic facts and ignore all the others which negate anything that is being proposed or is already in effect.

Why do you babble about "renewables' when I specifically talked about nuclear, which are reliable. So is hydroelectric, for that matter.

Why did you avoid completely increased fuel efficiency?

Besides the fact that you make up some numbers about how fossil fuels exceed what it takes to create solar and wind power (it doesn't).

The thing is, you are opposed in principle to "the gummit telling me what to do", not really weighing the value of policies. You would happily continue to fund people who want to kill us driving your big old SUV because you don't want the gummit telling you what to do because... uh, Freedom. Or something.

So just ignore that melting permafrost and dying coral reef, you don't want the gummit telling you what to do. The Market will provide. The Market is holy.

 

[JoeB131]

Sure it is. Whenever it is hot you claim it is global warming. Whenever it is cold you claim otherwise. Make up your mind.

No, i go with what 95% of scientists who study these things say, not some fat drug addled homosexual on hate Radio being sponsored by the Koch Brothers.

 

[IanC]

ever notice how liberals let it leak out what they think of gays when they get on a rant? lol

 

[JoeB131]

ever notice how liberals let it leak out what they think of gays when they get on a rant? lol

ever notice conservatives live in denial about what a fat drug addled guy who flies to the Dominican Republic with a bottle of illegal viagra was really up to?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Sure it is. Whenever it is hot you claim it is global warming. Whenever it is cold you claim otherwise. Make up your mind.

No, i go with what 95% of scientists who study these things say, not some fat drug addled homosexual on hate Radio being sponsored by the Koch Brothers.

The 95, 97% figure has been debunked numerous times as fake

Besides can't you think for yourself

 

[Wyatt earp]

oh, wow. Dude, I live in Chicago. You must live in the alternate Chicago because temperature and snowfall for the last two years has been well above an average year. They met up with history just this past year in both temperature and snowfall. So you enjoy your alternate city, the real city in the USA had very severe winter weather. the reason in 1970 the streets were not plowed was mostly due to preparedness and availability of plows and salt that are now in abundance. Dude, seriously, go back and continue with your program 'Fringe'.

Hey son, what is the temperature today in Chicago and what is average for today?

Are you on drugs.

Okay, one more time, WEATHER IS NOT CLIMATE!!!

No, the reason why 1978 and 1979 were such bad winters is because we had A SHITLOAD OF SNOW like you just do not see today.

Yes, you had a couple of bad storms here and there, but nothing like that.

Lmao Joe, you try to say that to the residence of the New England states, it seemed to me they had a shut due to a major blizzard.

In 2010, the upstate of South Carolina was closed down for 3 days with snow.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Any one who uses that 97% figure for an argument is a joke on these boards.

 

[JoeB131]

The 95, 97% figure has been debunked numerous times as fake

Besides can't you think for yourself

No, I just use reason.

If 19 out of 20 doctors tell you that you need to lose weight or you'll have a heart attack, do you really listen to the 20th doctor who tells you to eat deep fried Cheese Curds when he's got a picture of himself with the Cheese Curd King?

Well, you might.

But you'll happily listen to the crank Climatologist who gets a scholarship from the Koch Brothers telling you everything is fine, because you don't want no government.