America’s Most Advanced Climate Station Data Shows US In A 10-Year Cooling Trend Read more: http:

[Freewill]

Do you see the level of science knowledge by those, who I am sure will call those who argue against the GW hysteria anti-science?

LOLOLOL. Oh yes!!! The rational intelligent adults can very clearly see that the level of science knowledge of you and the other denier cult nitwits is almost non-existent. You are ignorant brainwashed morons, sorely aflicted by the Dunning-Kruger Effect, and mistakenly convinced that you are smarter and know more than the world scientific community. You are gullible retards who fall for the fraudulent pseudo-scientific propaganda generated by the fossil fuel industry, while moronically rejecting the testimony of the world's expert scientists in the fields of climate science. Your pretense to knowing anything about science is a joke. As you have repeatedly demonstrated with your ignorant clueless posts.

Could you please post on anti-global warming fear that I posted against? Or post what I posted that was scientifically incorrect.

Actually I used to be a gullible retard in the 70s when the science heighten the fear over almost everything in the world. Here we are 45 years later doing pretty well. So I changed from a gullible retard to a retard that does not do as you and appeal to authority. I produced the NOAA numbers if you have a problem with NOAA I suggest it is either YOU or you need to contact them. You ad hominem attack obviously means I win.

 

[Crick]

Basic physics. When it gets warmer in one place, adjoining places get cooler as the heat that was there moves to the warmer place resulting in cooling in the places the heat came from.

That it's getting cooler here means places next to us are getting warmer and drawing our heat to themselves.

See this in homes with fireplaces where bedrooms get cooler as their heat is drawn in to the room where the fireplace is.

Heat does not move from cold to hot, basic physics.

Heat flows from hot to cold

Heat moves in all directions. NET heat moves from hot to cold. Be that as it may, I'm sorry Delta4, but your statement here is just nonsense. Starting a fire in your fireplace does not make it cold in your bedroom. Opening the flue may well cause a draft that draws cold air in to the bedroom from outside, but it is not caused by the heat of the fire.

Heat flows from hot to cold trying to reach equilibrium.

Do you see the level of science knowledge by those, who I am sure will call those who argue against the GW hysteria anti-science?

I have a degree in engineering that included two semesters of thermodynamics and one of heat transfer. If you think heat only flows from hot to cold, it is you that has the science knowledge shortcoming. Pray tell, how does heat know what remote temperatures might be and by what mechanism does it steer itself?

Heat moves in all directions. That includes the heat of the hot side and the heat of the cold side. There's more of one than the other, so NET heat moves from hot to cold. Get it?

 

[jc456]

The response is going to be that the US is not the world, only a small part. But consider what would be said if things were reversed. If the data shown indicated that the US was warming and the rest of the world was cooling. Those who seem to think we can do something about the climate would be saying that the US has the best equipment thus we have to believe the US data. Well I agree.

Go here to see the actual NOAA data:

National Temperature Index National Centers for Environmental Information NCEI

From the linked article:

Data from America’s most advanced climate monitoring system shows the U.S. has undergone a cooling trend over the last decade, despite recent claims by government scientists that warming has accelerated worldwide during that time.

The U.S. Climate Reference Network was developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to provide “high-quality” climate data. The network consists of 114 stations across the U.S. in areas NOAA expects no development for the next 50 to 100 years.



Read more: Advanced Climate Station Data Shows U.S. In A Cooling Trend The Daily Caller

If that's true, why is Lake Mead water level so low.

many more people use the water from the lake then it was ever created to support. That's why. You know it's a man made lake right?

 

[jc456]

Er, I think we're back to saying that the USA does not count toward man-made global climate warming change

You really should stop asking for that.

You're the only one here saying to ignore the USA. All the normal people say the USA temps should be taken into the global average.

Frank, why do you keep demanding that the data be fudged?

oh come now that is a flat out warmer lie. Every time someone brings up the US, my side gets the whole the US only is X percent of the globe so it doesn't count. Dude/dudette, it's daily on here.

 

[jc456]

And I'm mocking you for lying, given that nobody said the USA doesn't count.

Nobody said the USA didn't count. You just lied about that. It's what you do. It's all you do.

he's 100% spot on, just explained in my previous post.

 

[rdean]

If Republicans are so scientific, why don't they come up with their own data? Why do they always try to misinterpret data from REAL scientists?

 

[jc456]

Do you see the level of science knowledge by those, who I am sure will call those who argue against the GW hysteria anti-science?

LOLOLOL. Oh yes!!! The rational intelligent adults can very clearly see that the level of science knowledge of you and the other denier cult nitwits is almost non-existent. You are ignorant brainwashed morons, sorely aflicted by the Dunning-Kruger Effect, and mistakenly convinced that you are smarter and know more than the world scientific community. You are gullible retards who fall for the fraudulent pseudo-scientific propaganda generated by the fossil fuel industry, while moronically rejecting the testimony of the world's expert scientists in the fields of climate science. Your pretense to knowing anything about science is a joke. As you have repeatedly demonstrated with your ignorant clueless posts.

and yet our skeptic knowledge is worlds greater than anything you and yours have. LOL

 

[jc456]

Basic physics. When it gets warmer in one place, adjoining places get cooler as the heat that was there moves to the warmer place resulting in cooling in the places the heat came from.

That it's getting cooler here means places next to us are getting warmer and drawing our heat to themselves.

See this in homes with fireplaces where bedrooms get cooler as their heat is drawn in to the room where the fireplace is.

Heat does not move from cold to hot, basic physics.

Heat flows from hot to cold

Heat moves in all directions. NET heat moves from hot to cold. Be that as it may, I'm sorry Delta4, but your statement here is just nonsense. Starting a fire in your fireplace does not make it cold in your bedroom. Opening the flue may well cause a draft that draws cold air in to the bedroom from outside, but it is not caused by the heat of the fire.

Heat flows from hot to cold trying to reach equilibrium.

Do you see the level of science knowledge by those, who I am sure will call those who argue against the GW hysteria anti-science?

I have a degree in engineering that included two semesters of thermodynamics and one of heat transfer. If you think heat only flows from hot to cold, it is you that has the science knowledge shortcoming. Pray tell, how does heat know what remote temperatures might be and by what mechanism does it steer itself?

Heat moves in all directions. That includes the heat of the hot side and the heat of the cold side. There's more of one than the other, so NET heat moves from hot to cold. Get it?

we're happy for you!

 

[Freewill]

If Republicans are so scientific, why don't they come up with their own data? Why do they always try to misinterpret data from REAL scientists?

I guess your opinion is scientific? I provided the NOAA site because I seriously doubt you and the gw fear mongers would accept anything else. And what do you do? Deny the information was ever presented to you. Can't be much more straight forward with you but you certainly could be.

 

[Freewill]

Basic physics. When it gets warmer in one place, adjoining places get cooler as the heat that was there moves to the warmer place resulting in cooling in the places the heat came from.

That it's getting cooler here means places next to us are getting warmer and drawing our heat to themselves.

See this in homes with fireplaces where bedrooms get cooler as their heat is drawn in to the room where the fireplace is.

Heat does not move from cold to hot, basic physics.

Heat flows from hot to cold

Heat moves in all directions. NET heat moves from hot to cold. Be that as it may, I'm sorry Delta4, but your statement here is just nonsense. Starting a fire in your fireplace does not make it cold in your bedroom. Opening the flue may well cause a draft that draws cold air in to the bedroom from outside, but it is not caused by the heat of the fire.

Heat flows from hot to cold trying to reach equilibrium.

Do you see the level of science knowledge by those, who I am sure will call those who argue against the GW hysteria anti-science?

I have a degree in engineering that included two semesters of thermodynamics and one of heat transfer. If you think heat only flows from hot to cold, it is you that has the science knowledge shortcoming. Pray tell, how does heat know what remote temperatures might be and by what mechanism does it steer itself?

Heat moves in all directions. That includes the heat of the hot side and the heat of the cold side. There's more of one than the other, so NET heat moves from hot to cold. Get it?

WTF? I even provided you a link to show what you are saying is completely in error. Areas of greater heat ALWAYS flow heat to areas that are colder. What I think you are trying to justify is thermal flow as applied to weather. Yes if one area gets hot then it might cause air flow to move to cool another but never, ever, does heat travel from cold to hot ever.

 

[RollingThunder]

LOLOLOL. Oh yes!!! The rational intelligent adults can very clearly see that the level of science knowledge of you and the other denier cult nitwits is almost non-existent. You are ignorant brainwashed morons, sorely aflicted by the Dunning-Kruger Effect, and mistakenly convinced that you are smarter and know more than the world scientific community. You are gullible retards who fall for the fraudulent pseudo-scientific propaganda generated by the fossil fuel industry, while moronically rejecting the testimony of the world's expert scientists in the fields of climate science. Your pretense to knowing anything about science is a joke. As you have repeatedly demonstrated with your ignorant clueless posts.

and yet our skeptic knowledge is worlds greater than anything you and yours have. LOL

Only in your imagination, JustCrazy, you poor deluded retard. In reality, your "knowledge" is almost non-existent, and what little you think you do know is mostly wrong.

 

[jc456]

LOLOLOL. Oh yes!!! The rational intelligent adults can very clearly see that the level of science knowledge of you and the other denier cult nitwits is almost non-existent. You are ignorant brainwashed morons, sorely aflicted by the Dunning-Kruger Effect, and mistakenly convinced that you are smarter and know more than the world scientific community. You are gullible retards who fall for the fraudulent pseudo-scientific propaganda generated by the fossil fuel industry, while moronically rejecting the testimony of the world's expert scientists in the fields of climate science. Your pretense to knowing anything about science is a joke. As you have repeatedly demonstrated with your ignorant clueless posts.

and yet our skeptic knowledge is worlds greater than anything you and yours have. LOL

Only in your imagination, JustCrazy, you poor deluded retard. In reality, your "knowledge" is almost non-existent, and what little you think you do know is mostly wrong.

And still much greater than yours.

 

[IanC]

The response is going to be that the US is not the world, only a small part. But consider what would be said if things were reversed. If the data shown indicated that the US was warming and the rest of the world was cooling. Those who seem to think we can do something about the climate would be saying that the US has the best equipment thus we have to believe the US data. Well I agree.

Go here to see the actual NOAA data:

National Temperature Index National Centers for Environmental Information NCEI

From the linked article:

Data from America’s most advanced climate monitoring system shows the U.S. has undergone a cooling trend over the last decade, despite recent claims by government scientists that warming has accelerated worldwide during that time.

The U.S. Climate Reference Network was developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to provide “high-quality” climate data. The network consists of 114 stations across the U.S. in areas NOAA expects no development for the next 50 to 100 years.



Read more: Advanced Climate Station Data Shows U.S. In A Cooling Trend The Daily Caller[/QUOTE

The response is going to be that the US is not the world, only a small part. But consider what would be said if things were reversed. If the data shown indicated that the US was warming and the rest of the world was cooling. Those who seem to think we can do something about the climate would be saying that the US has the best equipment thus we have to believe the US data. Well I agree.

Go here to see the actual NOAA data:

National Temperature Index National Centers for Environmental Information NCEI

From the linked article:

Data from America’s most advanced climate monitoring system shows the U.S. has undergone a cooling trend over the last decade, despite recent claims by government scientists that warming has accelerated worldwide during that time.

The U.S. Climate Reference Network was developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to provide “high-quality” climate data. The network consists of 114 stations across the U.S. in areas NOAA expects no development for the next 50 to 100 years.



Read more: Advanced Climate Station Data Shows U.S. In A Cooling Trend The Daily Caller

Hi freewill. I don't know how much you have looked into the CRN. Here is a link to WUWT that gives a primer and then discusses some of the questions brought up with comparing it with the USHCN data for the conterminous USA.
NOAA shows the pause in the U.S. surface temperature record over nearly a decade Watts Up With That

Perhaps crick can chime in with his statistical skills.

 

[mamooth]

oh come now that is a flat out warmer lie. Every time someone brings up the US, my side gets the whole the US only is X percent of the globe so it doesn't count. Dude/dudette, it's daily on here.

Nobody says "it doesn't count." Only pathologically dishonest deniers claim that. What people do say is that global means global, and that it's pretty damn stupid and dishonest to deliberately ignore 98% of the data.

Now, some of the deniers aren't deliberately lying. Some of them are just paste-eating morons. The simple fact that the whole world can warm as one small spot cools a bit, something even a second grader could grasp, is literally beyond them.

jc, are you one of the dishonest ones, or one of the stupid ones?

 

[IanC]

The US may only be a small part of the globe but it has a quarter of the total temp readings.

Africa has basically zero decent records so it is infilled and estimated. But still counts for twice as much as the US, and the difference in certainty? Doesn't matter apparently.

 

[SSDD]

Heat moves in all directions. That includes the heat of the hot side and the heat of the cold side. There's more of one than the other, so NET heat moves from hot to cold. Get it?

And you ace

The US may only be a small part of the globe but it has a quarter of the total temp readings.

Africa has basically zero decent records so it is infilled and estimated. But still counts for twice as much as the US, and the difference in certainty? Doesn't matter apparently.

Is there any rational, scientifically valid reason to believe that if the CRN network were extended over the entire land mass of the earth the same decline temperature wouldn't be evident everywere?

 

[mamooth]

Given your strange syntax and use of negatives, it's hard to parse that.

However, there's zero reason to believe the crazy theory that the cool spot in the eastern USA is global. That's just fine conspiracy nuttery.

 

[IanC]

The US may only be a small part of the globe but it has a quarter of the total temp readings.

Africa has basically zero decent records so it is infilled and estimated. But still counts for twice as much as the US, and the difference in certainty? Doesn't matter apparently.

Is there any rational, scientifically valid reason to believe that if the CRN network were extended over the entire land mass of the earth the same decline temperature wouldn't be evident everywere?

Interesting question. I don't think we can assume that the globe warms and cools in unison. At least over short time periods such as years or decades.

Also, the tropics are where most of the solar heating occurs but it is more stable temperature wise. Excess heat is pumped to the temperate zones which are more variable than the tropical zones. And of course the temperate zones pump some of that heat to the polar zones which are more volatile still. Adding to that is the uneven land mass distribution. Oceans have more thermal inertia so we would expect the southern hemisphere to show less variation, at least on short time scales.

Would a good worldwide temperature monitoring system show cooling like the CRN? I don't like to make guesses but it would certainly be superior to the infilling and adjustments being used now.

One example that stands out to me is Iceland, in a polar region. It is apparently adjusted by comparison to far away temperate stations which both warms Iceland and removes much of the variability. Then the new and adjusted Icelandic records are used to adjust other Arctic stations. Rinse and repeat until every part of the Arctic 'meets expectations'.

 

[jc456]

oh come now that is a flat out warmer lie. Every time someone brings up the US, my side gets the whole the US only is X percent of the globe so it doesn't count. Dude/dudette, it's daily on here.

Nobody says "it doesn't count." Only pathologically dishonest deniers claim that. What people do say is that global means global, and that it's pretty damn stupid and dishonest to deliberately ignore 98% of the data.

Now, some of the deniers aren't deliberately lying. Some of them are just paste-eating morons. The simple fact that the whole world can warm as one small spot cools a bit, something even a second grader could grasp, is literally beyond them.

jc, are you one of the dishonest ones, or one of the stupid ones?

Ian just said it best.

The US may only be a small part of the globe but it has a quarter of the total temp readings. Africa has basically zero decent records so it is infilled and estimated. But still counts for twice as much as the US, and the difference in certainty? Doesn't matter apparently.

 

[SSDD]

The US may only be a small part of the globe but it has a quarter of the total temp readings.

Africa has basically zero decent records so it is infilled and estimated. But still counts for twice as much as the US, and the difference in certainty? Doesn't matter apparently.

Is there any rational, scientifically valid reason to believe that if the CRN network were extended over the entire land mass of the earth the same decline temperature wouldn't be evident everywere?

Interesting question. I don't think we can assume that the globe warms and cools in unison. At least over short time periods such as years or decades.

Also, the tropics are where most of the solar heating occurs but it is more stable temperature wise. Excess heat is pumped to the temperate zones which are more variable than the tropical zones. And of course the temperate zones pump some of that heat to the polar zones which are more volatile still. Adding to that is the uneven land mass distribution. Oceans have more thermal inertia so we would expect the southern hemisphere to show less variation, at least on short time scales.

Would a good worldwide temperature monitoring system show cooling like the CRN? I don't like to make guesses but it would certainly be superior to the infilling and adjustments being used now.

One example that stands out to me is Iceland, in a polar region. It is apparently adjusted by comparison to far away temperate stations which both warms Iceland and removes much of the variability. Then the new and adjusted Icelandic records are used to adjust other Arctic stations. Rinse and repeat until every part of the Arctic 'meets expectations'.

All one need do to see the fraud that is happening is look at a temperature anomaly map...the hottest places on earth are invariably the places with the least instrumental coverage.