Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The surface temperature records were collected with a variety of different instruments, at differently sited locations in the city or the country, at different altitudes, and with changing technology over the years. The fact that scientists have gone back and analyzed a lot of the old data and made some corrections to compensate for all of those differences in order to produce a more globally comparable data set is neither surprising nor evidence of some dastardly conspiracy by all of those thousands of scientists to distort the record for nefarious purposes. It is only conspiracy theory nutjobs like you who fall for that nonsense.
It’s official: 2012 was the hottest year on record in the continental U.S. — and it wasn’t even close.
Too bad you're soooooo retarded and desperate that you have to keep repeating your long since debunked denier cult myths like that. The Met Office repudiated that lying article by the denier cult reporter David Rose in the Daily Mail.
Met Office Refutes Rose
I love the fact that the earth is getter warmer. What's there not to like?
I love the fact that the earth is getter warmer. What's there not to like?
I suppose it might look that way if you're an ignorant retard who hasn't even looked at the scientific warnings about the consequences of AGW.
Top 10 Worst Effects of Global Warming
[
I suppose it might look that way if you're an ignorant retard who hasn't even looked at the scientific warnings about the consequences of AGW.
Top 10 Worst Effects of Global Warming
I love the fact that the earth is getter warmer. What's there not to like?
I suppose it might look that way if you're an ignorant retard who hasn't even looked at the scientific warnings about the consequences of AGW.
Top 10 Worst Effects of Global Warming
10. Rising sea levels. I live in the mountains, so I don't care.
9. Shrinking glaciers. Don't care.
8. Heat waves. See 10.
7. Storms and floods. See 10.
6. Drought. I have a natural spring on my land. So don't care.
5. Disease. Not around here.
4. Economic consequences. I already have too much money.
3. Conflicts and war. Not here. Don't care about foreign wars.
2. Loss of biodiversity. Don't need global warming for that, it's been happening for millenia.
1. Destruction of ecosystems. Again, that happens all the time and throughout history. Some ecosystems will die, some will grow. It's just a fact of life. Some stars die, and some are born...
Got anything else I should care about?
SSDD -
Again, look at the graphs and try and post a little sensibly.
The charts show not one - not two - but SIX entirely independent sources of data. All confirm warming temperatures.
Running away from posts like this does not make you look cool.
there are data from temperature stations, and there are organizations that collect collate adjust and homogenize that data. just because the various organizations have their own methods of massaging the data to give 'a global temp' doesnt mean they are entirely independent sources of data.
what are some of the problems with producing 'global temp'? the world is unevenly measured with wildly different quality. eg the US has thousands of good records that are complete and go back over a hundred years. unfortunately these good records that show a very small temp increase (at least until strange things started to happen in 2000) are dwarfed by the shoddy, incomplete and short temp records in Africa. Africa is 4 times as large as the contUS and has 4 times the grid cells. the large uncertainty bars in Africa dont matter!
how about oceans? sparse measurements and questionable adjustments for measurement type made pre-ARGO data somewhat suspect, at least for uncertainty. yet they often report it in hundredths of a degree! ARGO measurements are much better and more comprehensive but even they are not worthy of claiming 0.01C accuracy.
it goes on and on.....given free choice of many stations in a grid, everytime a change in methodology happens the trend goes up! coincidence or cherry picking? the change in adjustments since the new millenium amounts to over 20% of the total increase! ( I am speaking of the US here because old data is hard to find for the rest of the world)
New Zealand and Austrailia are interesting to investigate because they are western countries with good, long standing records but dont have an overwhelming number of stations. the controversies in the last 5 years are numerous and enlightening for exposing the weaknesses in the temperature collection business.
10. Rising sea level - research has shown that sea level was at least 8 meters higher during the last interglacial period. What exactly makes you think it should be any lower during this one?
6. Drought - That one makes no sense at all. It flies in the face of what your warmist priests predict. They say that warming will result in more water vapor in the atmosphere....more water vapor in the atmosphere is not compatible with drought. Drought is the result of less water vapor in the atmosphere.
SSDD -
Again, look at the graphs and try and post a little sensibly.
The charts show not one - not two - but SIX entirely independent sources of data. All confirm warming temperatures.
Running away from posts like this does not make you look cool.
there are data from temperature stations, and there are organizations that collect collate adjust and homogenize that data. just because the various organizations have their own methods of massaging the data to give 'a global temp' doesnt mean they are entirely independent sources of data.
what are some of the problems with producing 'global temp'? the world is unevenly measured with wildly different quality. eg the US has thousands of good records that are complete and go back over a hundred years. unfortunately these good records that show a very small temp increase (at least until strange things started to happen in 2000) are dwarfed by the shoddy, incomplete and short temp records in Africa. Africa is 4 times as large as the contUS and has 4 times the grid cells. the large uncertainty bars in Africa dont matter!
how about oceans? sparse measurements and questionable adjustments for measurement type made pre-ARGO data somewhat suspect, at least for uncertainty. yet they often report it in hundredths of a degree! ARGO measurements are much better and more comprehensive but even they are not worthy of claiming 0.01C accuracy.
it goes on and on.....given free choice of many stations in a grid, everytime a change in methodology happens the trend goes up! coincidence or cherry picking? the change in adjustments since the new millenium amounts to over 20% of the total increase! ( I am speaking of the US here because old data is hard to find for the rest of the world)
New Zealand and Austrailia are interesting to investigate because they are western countries with good, long standing records but dont have an overwhelming number of stations. the controversies in the last 5 years are numerous and enlightening for exposing the weaknesses in the temperature collection business.
the BBC produced a show called 'Africa' where David Attenborough claimed "that part of the continent has warmed by 3.5C over the past 20 years". it is this sort of nonsense that drives people crazy and loses respect for climate science (at least to people who think).
I wont go over the whole story but I would like to point out a graph of the area in Africa that was being discussed.
it is obvious that the land-based measurements are at odds with the satellite measurements. it is also obvious that the land-based measurements are incomplete. this is rather typical of the african records between north african countries and south Africa. it all goes into the 'global temp', with a larger influence than the better measured but smaller sized American temps.
New Zealand and Austrailia are interesting to investigate because they are western countries with good, long standing records but dont have an overwhelming number of stations. the controversies in the last 5 years are numerous and enlightening for exposing the weaknesses in the temperature collection business.
I suppose it might look that way if you're an ignorant retard who hasn't even looked at the scientific warnings about the consequences of AGW.
Top 10 Worst Effects of Global Warming
10. Rising sea levels. I live in the mountains, so I don't care.
9. Shrinking glaciers. Don't care.
8. Heat waves. See 10.
7. Storms and floods. See 10.
6. Drought. I have a natural spring on my land. So don't care.
5. Disease. Not around here.
4. Economic consequences. I already have too much money.
3. Conflicts and war. Not here. Don't care about foreign wars.
2. Loss of biodiversity. Don't need global warming for that, it's been happening for millenia.
1. Destruction of ecosystems. Again, that happens all the time and throughout history. Some ecosystems will die, some will grow. It's just a fact of life. Some stars die, and some are born...
Got anything else I should care about?
You should definitely worry about the fact that you're an ignorant clueless retard.
Also the fact that you don't care at all about anybody of anything else in the world but yourself indicates that you're a worthless piece of shit, lacking not just intelligence but also heart, compassion and empathy.
Another sign of just how clueless and retarded you are is that you imagine that that is what I'm "here arguing about". The climate scientists who are warning mankind about the dangers and consequences of anthropogenic global warming and its associated climate changes are not "full of shit", you anti-science denier cult fool.10. Rising sea levels. I live in the mountains, so I don't care.
9. Shrinking glaciers. Don't care.
8. Heat waves. See 10.
7. Storms and floods. See 10.
6. Drought. I have a natural spring on my land. So don't care.
5. Disease. Not around here.
4. Economic consequences. I already have too much money.
3. Conflicts and war. Not here. Don't care about foreign wars.
2. Loss of biodiversity. Don't need global warming for that, it's been happening for millenia.
1. Destruction of ecosystems. Again, that happens all the time and throughout history. Some ecosystems will die, some will grow. It's just a fact of life. Some stars die, and some are born...
Got anything else I should care about?
You should definitely worry about the fact that you're an ignorant clueless retard.
Also the fact that you don't care at all about anybody of anything else in the world but yourself indicates that you're a worthless piece of shit, lacking not just intelligence but also heart, compassion and empathy.
People are their own worst enemies. Maybe if humans weren't so busy overpopulating the planet and destroying the ecosystems, this wouldn't be happening. You're here arguing over which scientist is less full of shit them the others.
You are a liar. You say here that you "have respect for the environment and other sentient beings" but you just got through saying repeatedly that you "don't care" about the environment or all of the people and animals on Earth.Aside from that, which is pitifully pointless with regards to what's happening, you're doing what exactly to help out mankind? I'm a vegetarian, meaning I have respect for the environment and other sentient being. What about you?
Another sign of just how clueless and retarded you are is that you imagine that that is what I'm "here arguing about". The climate scientists who are warning mankind about the dangers and consequences of anthropogenic global warming and its associated climate changes are not "full of shit", you anti-science denier cult fool.You should definitely worry about the fact that you're an ignorant clueless retard.
Also the fact that you don't care at all about anybody of anything else in the world but yourself indicates that you're a worthless piece of shit, lacking not just intelligence but also heart, compassion and empathy.
People are their own worst enemies. Maybe if humans weren't so busy overpopulating the planet and destroying the ecosystems, this wouldn't be happening. You're here arguing over which scientist is less full of shit them the others.
You are a liar. You say here that you "have respect for the environment and other sentient beings" but you just got through saying repeatedly that you "don't care" about the environment or all of the people and animals on Earth.Aside from that, which is pitifully pointless with regards to what's happening, you're doing what exactly to help out mankind? I'm a vegetarian, meaning I have respect for the environment and other sentient being. What about you?
Climate scientists predict that rising sea levels caused by AGW threaten the well being and safety of the literally billions of humans beings who live near the coastlines and also threaten to destroy the trillions of dollars in human investment in all of coastal cities and other coastal infrastructure, and you say you don't care.
Climate scientists predict that shrinking mountain glaciers all around the world threaten the summer water supplies for drinking, washing, agriculture, etc., for hundreds of millions of people and you say you don't care.
Climate scientists say that increasingly severe and numerous heat waves have already killed tens, or perhaps hundreds, of thousands of people and will kill many more in the future, and caused wildfires and billions of dollars in damages and crop losses, and you say you don't care.
Climate scientists predict that extreme storms and floods will cause increasing amounts of damage and loss of life and you say you don't care.
Climate scientists predict an increase in regional droughts, like in the American southwest, ruining crop lands and forcing people to become refugees and you say that you have a spring so you don't care about everybody else on the planet.
Climate scientists predict an increase in tropical diseases as the zones where they can spread pushes farther away from the equator due to AGW and you don't care because you foolishly imagine that it can't affect you.
You don't care about the economic consequences of warming and climate changes on everybody else on Earth because you say you already have enough money. You poor delusional retard.
Pentagon studies warn us that AGW will probably eventually cause wars over water and other resources and you just don't care.
You claim you have "respect for the environment" but you aren't concerned about the "loss of biodiversity" and the "destruction of ecosystems" that climate scientists predict will result from AGW. You are a liar and a fool.
nobody cares s0n........two decades from now, this guy will still be screaming at members in some forum in the internet nethersphere and what will have changed?Another sign of just how clueless and retarded you are is that you imagine that that is what I'm "here arguing about". The climate scientists who are warning mankind about the dangers and consequences of anthropogenic global warming and its associated climate changes are not "full of shit", you anti-science denier cult fool.People are their own worst enemies. Maybe if humans weren't so busy overpopulating the planet and destroying the ecosystems, this wouldn't be happening. You're here arguing over which scientist is less full of shit them the others.
You are a liar. You say here that you "have respect for the environment and other sentient beings" but you just got through saying repeatedly that you "don't care" about the environment or all of the people and animals on Earth.Aside from that, which is pitifully pointless with regards to what's happening, you're doing what exactly to help out mankind? I'm a vegetarian, meaning I have respect for the environment and other sentient being. What about you?
Climate scientists predict that rising sea levels caused by AGW threaten the well being and safety of the literally billions of humans beings who live near the coastlines and also threaten to destroy the trillions of dollars in human investment in all of coastal cities and other coastal infrastructure, and you say you don't care.
Climate scientists predict that shrinking mountain glaciers all around the world threaten the summer water supplies for drinking, washing, agriculture, etc., for hundreds of millions of people and you say you don't care.
Climate scientists say that increasingly severe and numerous heat waves have already killed tens, or perhaps hundreds, of thousands of people and will kill many more in the future, and caused wildfires and billions of dollars in damages and crop losses, and you say you don't care.
Climate scientists predict that extreme storms and floods will cause increasing amounts of damage and loss of life and you say you don't care.
Climate scientists predict an increase in regional droughts, like in the American southwest, ruining crop lands and forcing people to become refugees and you say that you have a spring so you don't care about everybody else on the planet.
Climate scientists predict an increase in tropical diseases as the zones where they can spread pushes farther away from the equator due to AGW and you don't care because you foolishly imagine that it can't affect you.
You don't care about the economic consequences of warming and climate changes on everybody else on Earth because you say you already have enough money. You poor delusional retard.
Pentagon studies warn us that AGW will probably eventually cause wars over water and other resources and you just don't care.
You claim you have "respect for the environment" but you aren't concerned about the "loss of biodiversity" and the "destruction of ecosystems" that climate scientists predict will result from AGW. You are a liar and a fool.
DICK
Renewables will still be less than 10% of our energy sources.
New Zealand and Austrailia are interesting to investigate because they are western countries with good, long standing records but dont have an overwhelming number of stations. the controversies in the last 5 years are numerous and enlightening for exposing the weaknesses in the temperature collection business.
This is an odd claim. NIWA have done examplary work over many years, and I wouldn't have thought they lacked for data. Much of the work is peer-reviewed, and they seem to be very transparent.
I guess you are referring to some denier who sued them for some reason - and lost.
Review | NIWA
I'd be interested to hear why you think NZ data is not reliable, given the two major recent 'seven station' and 'eleven station' studies.
It's interesting to see that this is yet ANOTHER independent source of excellent, peer-reviewed science that is being attacked purely and simply because they confirm what everyone already knows - temperatures are rising in New Zealand, and climate change is evident in the New Zealand environment. Glaciers suh as Fox and Franz Joseph are melting, there are more floods occuring, and stonger storm cycles - such as the two tornados to hit Albany recently (the only two recorded torandos in NZ history, I believe.)
