Average temp

[RetiredGySgt]

If the average temp is x then the variance around it will be set by that average.

If as has happened the average temp goes up a degree then ALL averages are going to be reflecting that 1 degree change. So citing that average temps are higher now then they were when the temp was lower mean nothing. That is common sense and reality.

In the early 1900's the prediction was that over the century the temperature would rise by 1 degree. That is about what happened. Yet we are to run around with our heads lopped off because a 100 year old prediction came true.

Our knowledge of climate and climate change is so poor we can only make guesses what will occur. Our knowledge of weather patterns and such are based entirely on OBSERVED data. We can estimate based on OBSERVED data what the weather will be like fort about 2 weeks.

We base all our climate estimates for weather conditions like Hurricanes and such off OBSERVED data over time. We can not even get those estimates right on a monthly basis.

Unless you can show a permanent spike in temps the fact that yearly averages are higher now then 10 or 20 years ago means absolutely nothing other then the fact our average temperature in fact went up about 1 and a half degrees.

The only concern about that was the fact that about half a degree occurred in a 20 year period. And that stopped in 1998.

And there still is no credible evidence that man caused that rise in temp.

The claim made by some was that rising C)2 caused the temperature increase and that man was the reason for the CO2 increase. If that were in fact the case then from 1998 to present we would have seen about half a degree increase in world temperature Averages. And we have not.

There is no functional factual theory that makes the temp increase man made.

 

[mamooth]

In the early 1900's the prediction was that over the century the temperature would rise by 1 degree.

Huh? Who made this prediction?

We can estimate based on OBSERVED data what the weather will be like for about 2 weeks.

Confusing-climate-with-weather fallacy.

Unless you can show a permanent spike in temps

Done. The last few years are all hot. The spike is permanent. Except for the getting hotter part. 2013 will probably break all the old records, with a solar peak and an El Nino building.

And that stopped in 1998.

The "warming stopped in 1998!" fallacy. You're hitting a lot of the standard denialist list of bad logic and fallacies.

And there still is no credible evidence that man caused that rise in temp.

Sure there is. We could go over it, but you'd handwave it all away as a liberal conspiracy, so what's the point?

If that were in fact the case then from 1998 to present we would have seen about half a degree increase in world temperature Averages. And we have not.

Half a degree, no. It's been about 0.25C/decade, so a little less. But it's been what AGW theory predicted. That's why AGW theory has credibility, because it's been making successful predictions for decades.

There is no functional factual theory that makes the temp increase man made.

There's no theory that you can understand. Not our problem. You can't understand a lot of science, but it's still valid. The absorption spectrum of CO2 won't change because your political cult doesn't believe in the physics.

But since pictures might help, here's an illustration of the fallacy of your "warming stopped in 1998!" statement.

 

[bripat9643]

The data you posted has been "homogenized." That means it's doctored horseshit. Satellite data shows the Earth's temperature has been decreasing.

There's no theory that you can understand. Not our problem. You can't understand a lot of science, but it's still valid. The absorption spectrum of CO2 won't change because your political cult doesn't believe in the physics.

But since pictures might help, here's an illustration of the fallacy of your "warming stopped in 1998!" statement.

 

[mamooth]

Satellite data shows the Earth's temperature has been decreasing.

That denialist claim was debunked around 2005. But it's an interesting illustration of how good the models are.

The models said the tropospheric temp should be increasing at all levels.

The satellite measurements disagreed.

The modellers said "No, your measurements have to be wrong, because they disagree with all the other data. Recheck your calibrations."

They rechecked their calibrations. The satellites had been measuring wrong. When calibrations were fixed, satellites showed tropospheric temps had been increasing all along.

Much the same thing happened with sea surface temperatures. The rational people will look at it as evidence of how good the models are. The crazy political cultists will declare it proves a massive worldwide conspiracy to fudge the data to match the models. And being that they are brainwashed cultists, it will be impossible to ever disprove to them that such a conspiracy happened, as all efforts to do so are clearly just part of the conspiracy.

 

[Old Rocks]

If the average temp is x then the variance around it will be set by that average.

If as has happened the average temp goes up a degree then ALL averages are going to be reflecting that 1 degree change. So citing that average temps are higher now then they were when the temp was lower mean nothing. That is common sense and reality.

In the early 1900's the prediction was that over the century the temperature would rise by 1 degree. That is about what happened. Yet we are to run around with our heads lopped off because a 100 year old prediction came true.

Our knowledge of climate and climate change is so poor we can only make guesses what will occur. Our knowledge of weather patterns and such are based entirely on OBSERVED data. We can estimate based on OBSERVED data what the weather will be like fort about 2 weeks.

We base all our climate estimates for weather conditions like Hurricanes and such off OBSERVED data over time. We can not even get those estimates right on a monthly basis.

Unless you can show a permanent spike in temps the fact that yearly averages are higher now then 10 or 20 years ago means absolutely nothing other then the fact our average temperature in fact went up about 1 and a half degrees.

The only concern about that was the fact that about half a degree occurred in a 20 year period. And that stopped in 1998.

And there still is no credible evidence that man caused that rise in temp.

The claim made by some was that rising C)2 caused the temperature increase and that man was the reason for the CO2 increase. If that were in fact the case then from 1998 to present we would have seen about half a degree increase in world temperature Averages. And we have not.

There is no functional factual theory that makes the temp increase man made.

You realize how full of shit that you truly are?

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

The evidence is right there from scientists, dating to 1858.

 

[Old Rocks]

The data you posted has been "homogenized." That means it's doctored horseshit. Satellite data shows the Earth's temperature has been decreasing.

There's no theory that you can understand. Not our problem. You can't understand a lot of science, but it's still valid. The absorption spectrum of CO2 won't change because your political cult doesn't believe in the physics.

But since pictures might help, here's an illustration of the fallacy of your "warming stopped in 1998!" statement.

In other words, the data does not agree with you political views.

Pattycake, reality is what it is, and has zero respect for your asinine political views. You can ignore reality all you please, but it will not ignore you. Reality is going to visit you and the rest of the world on the grocery shelves as the effects of the agricultural damage from the ongoing climate change impacts the price of food.

 

[skookerasbil]

Again I say............how is it mattering? All this consensus science?


Ive seen that CARBON DIOXIDE GREENHOUSE EFFECT link posted up in here at least 500 times in the past few years. To what end exactly?


I fail to see how it is mattering in the least! Cap and Trade is totally in the crapper and everyone and their brother see the fauxness in public monies being used for the current gay green technology.

Not one radical in here has been able to post up anything in here except more gay science links that nobody cares about except the internet OCD goofballs.

 

[bripat9643]

Satellite data shows the Earth's temperature has been decreasing.

That denialist claim was debunked around 2005. But it's an interesting illustration of how good the models are.

The models said the tropospheric temp should be increasing at all levels.

The satellite measurements disagreed.

The modellers said "No, your measurements have to be wrong, because they disagree with all the other data. Recheck your calibrations."

They rechecked their calibrations. The satellites had been measuring wrong. When calibrations were fixed, satellites showed tropospheric temps had been increasing all along.

Much the same thing happened with sea surface temperatures. The rational people will look at it as evidence of how good the models are. The crazy political cultists will declare it proves a massive worldwide conspiracy to fudge the data to match the models. And being that they are brainwashed cultists, it will be impossible to ever disprove to them that such a conspiracy happened, as all efforts to do so are clearly just part of the conspiracy.

The claim has never been debunked, nimrod. Here is the latest chart from Dr Roy Spencer:

 

[bripat9643]

In other words, the data does not agree with you political views.

Pattycake, reality is what it is, and has zero respect for your asinine political views. You can ignore reality all you please, but it will not ignore you. Reality is going to visit you and the rest of the world on the grocery shelves as the effects of the agricultural damage from the ongoing climate change impacts the price of food.

No, the data is fraudulent. In your mind, if it agrees with your political views, then it must be true. However, the evidence for deliberate tampering is massive. Climategate I and II are just a small part of it. All the major temperature data bases have been discredited.

 

[Old Rocks]

Satellite data shows the Earth's temperature has been decreasing.

That denialist claim was debunked around 2005. But it's an interesting illustration of how good the models are.

The models said the tropospheric temp should be increasing at all levels.

The satellite measurements disagreed.

The modellers said "No, your measurements have to be wrong, because they disagree with all the other data. Recheck your calibrations."

They rechecked their calibrations. The satellites had been measuring wrong. When calibrations were fixed, satellites showed tropospheric temps had been increasing all along.

Much the same thing happened with sea surface temperatures. The rational people will look at it as evidence of how good the models are. The crazy political cultists will declare it proves a massive worldwide conspiracy to fudge the data to match the models. And being that they are brainwashed cultists, it will be impossible to ever disprove to them that such a conspiracy happened, as all efforts to do so are clearly just part of the conspiracy.

The claim has never been debunked, nimrod. Here is the latest chart from Dr Roy Spencer:

Amazing thing about that graph. The very strong La Nina of 2010-2011, and the first few months of 2012 resulted in a running average low that was higher than any running average high point prior to 1998. And now we are in an ENSO neutral period, and higher than any high point, period, prior to 1998.

What that graph shows is what every other indicator has been showing. That superimposed on the normal variation in weather is a rapidly increasing warming, one which is now changing the climate.

 

[Old Rocks]

In other words, the data does not agree with you political views.

Pattycake, reality is what it is, and has zero respect for your asinine political views. You can ignore reality all you please, but it will not ignore you. Reality is going to visit you and the rest of the world on the grocery shelves as the effects of the agricultural damage from the ongoing climate change impacts the price of food.

No, the data is fraudulent. In your mind, if it agrees with your political views, then it must be true. However, the evidence for deliberate tampering is massive. Climategate I and II are just a small part of it. All the major temperature data bases have been discredited.

What a dumb ass you are. The data is fraudulent. Sure, all the scientists from all the nations around the world are in on one gigantic conspiracy. For there is not a Scientific Society, not a National Academy of Science, nor a major University making the wingnut conspiracy claim that you are.

 

[flacaltenn]

In the early 1900's the prediction was that over the century the temperature would rise by 1 degree.

Huh? Who made this prediction?

We can estimate based on OBSERVED data what the weather will be like for about 2 weeks.

Confusing-climate-with-weather fallacy.



Done. The last few years are all hot. The spike is permanent. Except for the getting hotter part. 2013 will probably break all the old records, with a solar peak and an El Nino building.



The "warming stopped in 1998!" fallacy. You're hitting a lot of the standard denialist list of bad logic and fallacies.



Sure there is. We could go over it, but you'd handwave it all away as a liberal conspiracy, so what's the point?

If that were in fact the case then from 1998 to present we would have seen about half a degree increase in world temperature Averages. And we have not.

Half a degree, no. It's been about 0.25C/decade, so a little less. But it's been what AGW theory predicted. That's why AGW theory has credibility, because it's been making successful predictions for decades.

There is no functional factual theory that makes the temp increase man made.

There's no theory that you can understand. Not our problem. You can't understand a lot of science, but it's still valid. The absorption spectrum of CO2 won't change because your political cult doesn't believe in the physics.

But since pictures might help, here's an illustration of the fallacy of your "warming stopped in 1998!" statement.

What a pansy... WHO made predictions about 20th century warming??

Note the rates are (as the poster stated) not far off from the averages for the 20th century.. In fact

Moving on to the effect on global temperature, Callendar began:

If the whole surface of the earth is considered as a unit upon which a certain amount of heat falls each day, it is obvious that the mean temperature will depend upon the rate at which this heat can escape by radiation, because no other type of heat exchange is possible.

(Evidently by “the whole surface of the earth,” he means to include the whole thickness of the atmosphere.) Callendar calculates that for temperate conditions, a doubling of CO2 should increase surface temperature by about 1.5 C. Looking back, this stands as a reasonable estimate.

You really need to start responding and stop THRASHING and recycling..

The only people that CONFUSE weather with climate are YOU and your panty wetting buds everytime there's a local weather issue.

And for all practical purposes, the 12 yr rate of warming from 1998 to 2010 is about 0.03degC/decade. Yes -- we keep hitting maximums off of that plateau, but it's a true statement that the SHORT-TERM rate of warming went to near zero.. May not be SIGNIFICANT (as many of the GW factoids aren't) --- but it's true..

OH BTW______ THat cute little animated GIF you posted???? Every wonder why they picked 1976 as a start point??? Because had they started at 1950 --- that slope wouldn't be NEAR as exciting.. Talk about hypocrits.. There they are reaming skeptics for even bothering to calculate and track a decade (10 years) of temperature.. But then they LIMIT THEIR GRAPH to 30 years.. As tho --- LMAO ---- As THO, those 20 extra years MEAN A SHIT to this planet...

Read my footer. GB Shaw had you pegged....

 

[flacaltenn]

That denialist claim was debunked around 2005. But it's an interesting illustration of how good the models are.

The models said the tropospheric temp should be increasing at all levels.

The satellite measurements disagreed.

The modellers said "No, your measurements have to be wrong, because they disagree with all the other data. Recheck your calibrations."

They rechecked their calibrations. The satellites had been measuring wrong. When calibrations were fixed, satellites showed tropospheric temps had been increasing all along.

Much the same thing happened with sea surface temperatures. The rational people will look at it as evidence of how good the models are. The crazy political cultists will declare it proves a massive worldwide conspiracy to fudge the data to match the models. And being that they are brainwashed cultists, it will be impossible to ever disprove to them that such a conspiracy happened, as all efforts to do so are clearly just part of the conspiracy.

The claim has never been debunked, nimrod. Here is the latest chart from Dr Roy Spencer:

Amazing thing about that graph. The very strong La Nina of 2010-2011, and the first few months of 2012 resulted in a running average low that was higher than any running average high point prior to 1998. And now we are in an ENSO neutral period, and higher than any high point, period, prior to 1998.

What that graph shows is what every other indicator has been showing. That superimposed on the normal variation in weather is a rapidly increasing warming, one which is now changing the climate.

That's why warmers hate satellite measurements.. Oh welll....

O.R. --- and you make this statement about climate change based on 30 year or so satellite record of temp?? There is no earthly reason to expect that Earth responds that quickly to ANY climate forcing. So --- what's your hurry man? You gotta prove me wrong before you die or something???

 

[uscitizen]

It won't matter after 12-21 anyway.

 

[Old Rocks]

The claim has never been debunked, nimrod. Here is the latest chart from Dr Roy Spencer:

Amazing thing about that graph. The very strong La Nina of 2010-2011, and the first few months of 2012 resulted in a running average low that was higher than any running average high point prior to 1998. And now we are in an ENSO neutral period, and higher than any high point, period, prior to 1998.

What that graph shows is what every other indicator has been showing. That superimposed on the normal variation in weather is a rapidly increasing warming, one which is now changing the climate.

That's why warmers hate satellite measurements.. Oh welll....

O.R. --- and you make this statement about climate change based on 30 year or so satellite record of temp?? There is no earthly reason to expect that Earth responds that quickly to ANY climate forcing. So --- what's your hurry man? You gotta prove me wrong before you die or something???

Hell no, I expect to be around to see that graph hit the 60 mark.

However, the longer we wait to address the problem, the less chance that addressing it will do any good. But, that is something that you really don't care about anyway.

 

[flacaltenn]

Au contraire mon Enemy 000000 --- I'll fix it tomorrow with 250 new nuclear plants.. Anytime you're ready to stop yip yapping and do something meaningful...

Don't you ever feel dirty talking about ONE NUMBER as your ENTIRE evidence for doom and disaster.

After all --- this OP is about "average temps"... Part of my skepticism here on AGW is the entire farce of talking about "Global Mean Surface Temp" as THOUGH it means anything to understanding the impact on climate around the globe. In our lifetimes 0.5degC GLOBAL AVERAGE temp increase means NOTHING to understanding the problems. (your lifetime -- maybe .8degC LOL).

It means NOTHING to a bug's survival, it means nothing to a cumulo-nimbus, it means nothing to a tornado --- and YET ----- your hallucinations tell you that doom is imminent because some GLOBAL YEARLY average has spiked 1degC.....

It means NOTHING to the Arctic in winter where the "warming" is most apparent. After all, the diff between -21F and -21.5F up there in December has almost no enviromental consequences. AND YET the bulk of the warming comes from these regions. And that biases the single stupid global yearly average.

So I'm looking at the bigger picture of the CAUSE of the warming. And I think we'll get to that with more satellite imaging and instrumentation shortly. But I'm not panicked by a silly single number that you guys PRETEND describes the scope and cause of the problem..