Old Rocks
Diamond Member
![gfs_nh-sat4_sstanom_1-day.png](https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx_frames/gfs/ds/gfs_nh-sat4_sstanom_1-day.png)
Next few months will be interesting.
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.
There is a reason they call it "reanalyzed". They weren't happy with the first results.It looks like California might have a drought busting year.
You know that this is normal right?
There is a reason they call it "reanalyzed". They weren't happy with the first results.It looks like California might have a drought busting year.
You know that this is normal right?
None of that matters compared to the dishonesty of the graph the OP posted.There is a reason they call it "reanalyzed". They weren't happy with the first results.It looks like California might have a drought busting year.
You know that this is normal right?
There are records of warm ocean from the Aztecs and from ancient writings of polynesian tribes. Those are the first results.
None of that matters compared to the dishonesty of the graph the OP posted.There is a reason they call it "reanalyzed". They weren't happy with the first results.It looks like California might have a drought busting year.
You know that this is normal right?
There are records of warm ocean from the Aztecs and from ancient writings of polynesian tribes. Those are the first results.
Has anyone noticed the subset of years that this information is portraying? 1971 to 2000.
The question now becomes, "Why just those years?"
Why not a comparison of all historical data? The answer is pretty simple.
A date chosen to highlight the message they want to convey.None of that matters compared to the dishonesty of the graph the OP posted.There is a reason they call it "reanalyzed". They weren't happy with the first results.It looks like California might have a drought busting year.
You know that this is normal right?
There are records of warm ocean from the Aztecs and from ancient writings of polynesian tribes. Those are the first results.
Has anyone noticed the subset of years that this information is portraying? 1971 to 2000.
The question now becomes, "Why just those years?"
Why not a comparison of all historical data? The answer is pretty simple.
That was the period used to calculate the baseline - the zero level on the graph. The data displayed was for Saturday, Dec 01, 2018. It was compared to the average temperatures of the baseline
![]()
Next few months will be interesting.
![]()
Next few months will be interesting.
You get the water isn't really that color, right?