Brrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!

[Sinatra]

BALONEY

March 2009 was the tenth warmest March since global surface records began in 1880 for combined global land and ocean surface temperatures. March land surface temperatures were tenth warmest, while ocean surface temperatures were eighth warmest in the 130-year record. The January-March year-to-date period land and ocean combined temperature was the eighth warmest on record.

LOL - this past March was the 10th warmest March of the 21st Century.....

Yes, making it the COLDEST March of the 21st Century....

-Ahem-

I will say it again - I truly hope the earth is warming rather than cooling, but the last decade has not cooperated with that desire. Hopefully this trend will stop, and some marginal warming will begin again, but for now, nearly all the warming of the last 20 years has been wiped out, and an increasing number of scientists are stating we could see continued cooling for another 20 or 30 years.

Bummer.

,,,

March 2009 was the coldest March of the last decade.

Brrrr.......

 

[edthecynic]

You don't know what the rest of the world is temperature wise and stop acting like you do. Your hero Hansen even admits as much. There isn't even an agreement on how to measure temperature. If you can't even decide what to measure, how and the hell can you derive any kind of accurate (AND OH MY GOD, we're talking tenths of a degree of change as being significant) readings to base decisions on?

How can scientists get accurate data about warming or cooling trends with inaccurate thermometers or what ever? By being smarter than deniers, that's how.
They don't report the actual temp reading but the deviation from the average reading on that thermometer called an ANOMALY. So if that thermometer is getting higher readings than its 30 year average, then that shows a warming trend that year.

What the actual average temp of the globe is might be debatable, but the fact that we are warming is not, as proven by the anomalies.

You are the one that is in denial. You deny that your data set is a pile of shit. Your hero Hansen even admitted as much. You can't agree on where to site the thermometers. You don't know whether the siting arrangement has changed. I know damn good and well you weren't getting statistical information from the USSR and China 30-60 years ago, so your data set has massive holes in it. It's just crap. You need to stop denying it and set about correcting the record.

It doesn't matter where the stick the thermometer, they can STILL tell whether the trend is up or down wherever they stick it by using anomalies. And any holes in data are accounted for in the margin of error, shown by the grey lines. Longer lines show where the data is less complete.

 

[Sinatra]

AND NOW APRIL 2009 SLATED TO BE THE "100TH WARMEST ON RECORD"!!!

MY GOD PEOPLE - BUNDLE UP - IT'S GETTING COLDER OUT THERE!!!!!

Will April be the 100th Warmest On Record? « Watts Up With That?

 

[Tech_Esq]

How can scientists get accurate data about warming or cooling trends with inaccurate thermometers or what ever? By being smarter than deniers, that's how.
They don't report the actual temp reading but the deviation from the average reading on that thermometer called an ANOMALY. So if that thermometer is getting higher readings than its 30 year average, then that shows a warming trend that year.

What the actual average temp of the globe is might be debatable, but the fact that we are warming is not, as proven by the anomalies.

You are the one that is in denial. You deny that your data set is a pile of shit. Your hero Hansen even admitted as much. You can't agree on where to site the thermometers. You don't know whether the siting arrangement has changed. I know damn good and well you weren't getting statistical information from the USSR and China 30-60 years ago, so your data set has massive holes in it. It's just crap. You need to stop denying it and set about correcting the record.

It doesn't matter where the stick the thermometer, they can STILL tell whether the trend is up or down wherever they stick it by using anomalies. And any holes in data are accounted for in the margin of error, shown by the grey lines. Longer lines show where the data is less complete.

Wrong answer!

It does matter because you are claiming to report global temps that means you need to have a uniform recording mechanism and you don't. Variations due to siting variances are not controlled for and can't be. I'd like to take a look at some of the sitings in remote Africa and Russia and Mongolia let alone other places. There are so many environmental deviations that are not controlled for by the measuring mechanisms you can't even name them all. Additionally, you could have one site where equipment upgrades or repair have occurred and caused a variance in the elevation of the thermometer which Hansen claims causes serious variation in the temperatures recorded. Unless everyone using the data knows the siting changed on that location, your data from that location loses validity.

It might be different if you were measuring in less fine grained way what the temperature variation is, but when you are showing me shit in tenth and one hundredths of a degree, you better have all of your shit straight 100% and you don't.

So, stop spamming us with your bullshit charts based on bad and incomplete data and stop being a denier!

 

[Sinatra]

Today it is official - Global Warmers are the newly revised Flat Earthers!!!

Developing...

 

[edthecynic]

You are the one that is in denial. You deny that your data set is a pile of shit. Your hero Hansen even admitted as much. You can't agree on where to site the thermometers. You don't know whether the siting arrangement has changed. I know damn good and well you weren't getting statistical information from the USSR and China 30-60 years ago, so your data set has massive holes in it. It's just crap. You need to stop denying it and set about correcting the record.

It doesn't matter where the stick the thermometer, they can STILL tell whether the trend is up or down wherever they stick it by using anomalies. And any holes in data are accounted for in the margin of error, shown by the grey lines. Longer lines show where the data is less complete.

Wrong answer!

It does matter because you are claiming to report global temps that means you need to have a uniform recording mechanism and you don't. Variations due to siting variances are not controlled for and can't be. I'd like to take a look at some of the sitings in remote Africa and Russia and Mongolia let alone other places. There are so many environmental deviations that are not controlled for by the measuring mechanisms you can't even name them all. Additionally, you could have one site where equipment upgrades or repair have occurred and caused a variance in the elevation of the thermometer which Hansen claims causes serious variation in the temperatures recorded. Unless everyone using the data knows the siting changed on that location, your data from that location loses validity.

It might be different if you were measuring in less fine grained way what the temperature variation is, but when you are showing me shit in tenth and one hundredths of a degree, you better have all of your shit straight 100% and you don't.

So, stop spamming us with your bullshit charts based on bad and incomplete data and stop being a denier!

You can parrot your lies as much as you want, but using ANOMALIES gives accurate data on warming or cooling.

 

[Sinatra]

It appears today will be another sweater day.

Dammit!!!!

 

[Tech_Esq]

It doesn't matter where the stick the thermometer, they can STILL tell whether the trend is up or down wherever they stick it by using anomalies. And any holes in data are accounted for in the margin of error, shown by the grey lines. Longer lines show where the data is less complete.

Wrong answer!

It does matter because you are claiming to report global temps that means you need to have a uniform recording mechanism and you don't. Variations due to siting variances are not controlled for and can't be. I'd like to take a look at some of the sitings in remote Africa and Russia and Mongolia let alone other places. There are so many environmental deviations that are not controlled for by the measuring mechanisms you can't even name them all. Additionally, you could have one site where equipment upgrades or repair have occurred and caused a variance in the elevation of the thermometer which Hansen claims causes serious variation in the temperatures recorded. Unless everyone using the data knows the siting changed on that location, your data from that location loses validity.

It might be different if you were measuring in less fine grained way what the temperature variation is, but when you are showing me shit in tenth and one hundredths of a degree, you better have all of your shit straight 100% and you don't.

So, stop spamming us with your bullshit charts based on bad and incomplete data and stop being a denier!

You can parrot your lies as much as you want, but using ANOMALIES gives accurate data on warming or cooling.

Keep spouting your data set denier lies, flat Earther! It doesn't make you any more right than you were before. You're the proud owner of a house of cards build on quick sand.

 

[Sinatra]

YES! Global Warmers = Flat Earthers!!!

Dogma in place of common sense...

 

[Tech_Esq]

It appears today will be another sweater day.

Dammit!!!!

Cold as a well digger's ass here. We've only had one decent day so far this year. Usually we get 3 or so 2-3 day periods of mild temps during the winter. This year it was unrelenting cold. Even now, normal temps are in the mid-upper 60s. It's 42 today.

It was 45 yesterday and only supposed to be in the 50s tomorrow. It's been so cold I haven't even commissioned my boat yet this year. The last two years, I've done it in March. This year, I haven't even seriously considered it. The temps are still near freezing on a regular basis. Unheard of cold for DC.

 

[Sinatra]

It appears today will be another sweater day.

Dammit!!!!

Cold as a well digger's ass here. We've only had one decent day so far this year. Usually we get 3 or so 2-3 day periods of mild temps during the winter. This year it was unrelenting cold. Even now, normal temps are in the mid-upper 60s. It's 42 today.

It was 45 yesterday and only supposed to be in the 50s tomorrow. It's been so cold I haven't even commissioned my boat yet this year. The last two years, I've done it in March. This year, I haven't even seriously considered it. The temps are still near freezing on a regular basis. Unheard of cold for DC.

Same here on the left coast - the winters have grown increasingly longer, summers much shorter, and fall has been colder and wetter.

Alas, I wish some global warming would return, but ever since they changed the tag to "Climate Change" the damn weather has grown colder and colder...

 

[krotchdog]

Really, Ever?.....Time to sit back and drink whatever those whacko's are serving. You have been indoctinated

Okay, you are right, whats your solution, to increase the rate we use our natural resources by 10,000% on green energy that will not close the gap between rising demand and current usage? Try looking up those facts and give us those figures, until you can show that going green is not destroying the planet at a faster rate than why should we discuss something that is impossible to change.

obamas energy policy will accelerate global warming, and those in his cabinet represent the richest democratic corporations in the world (cheap shot, corporations payoff both sides of the fence).

So you are right the globa is warming because of us, and when you begin to tell us its cooling because of us, (which you are bit slow to catch onto, terminology has changed, for your arguement it is now global climate change that way any change supports your fantasy) I concede, so whats the plan, use more oil to make more propene which without you cannot go green.

Renewable energy is renewable as propene, propene only comes from oil, oil from the ground, so run out of oil, your renewable energy is gone. Thats such an oxymoronic statement, windmills always need to be replaced yet they are renewable, solar panels always need to be replaced and they are renewable.

Explain renewalbe to me brainiacs.

My point is the term ever. Science has really only caught the last ...let's say 45 years of Earth's existence, we are talking approx. 5 billion years.. Yet they are claiming that the Earth is at it's hottest the last 10 years. I agree with you on everything you stated.

I was tired when I posted, I am not sure if I meant to respond to you or if I fat fingered the key board so I took my post down. sorry

Yep I screwed up. My rant should not of been directed against meister

 

[Sinatra]

Okay, you are right, whats your solution, to increase the rate we use our natural resources by 10,000% on green energy that will not close the gap between rising demand and current usage? Try looking up those facts and give us those figures, until you can show that going green is not destroying the planet at a faster rate than why should we discuss something that is impossible to change.

obamas energy policy will accelerate global warming, and those in his cabinet represent the richest democratic corporations in the world (cheap shot, corporations payoff both sides of the fence).

So you are right the globa is warming because of us, and when you begin to tell us its cooling because of us, (which you are bit slow to catch onto, terminology has changed, for your arguement it is now global climate change that way any change supports your fantasy) I concede, so whats the plan, use more oil to make more propene which without you cannot go green.

Renewable energy is renewable as propene, propene only comes from oil, oil from the ground, so run out of oil, your renewable energy is gone. Thats such an oxymoronic statement, windmills always need to be replaced yet they are renewable, solar panels always need to be replaced and they are renewable.

Explain renewalbe to me brainiacs.

My point is the term ever. Science has really only caught the last ...let's say 45 years of Earth's existence, we are talking approx. 5 billion years.. Yet they are claiming that the Earth is at it's hottest the last 10 years. I agree with you on everything you stated.

I was tired when I posted, I am not sure if I meant to respond to you or if I fat fingered the key board so I took my post down. sorry

 

[krotchdog]

whats the solution GREENEE MEANEES, to increase the rate we use our natural resources by 10,000% on green energy that will not close the gap between rising demand and current usage? Try looking up those facts and give us those figures, until the greenee meanees can show that going green is not destroying the planet at a faster rate than why should we discuss something that is impossible to change.

obamas energy policy will accelerate global warming, and those in his cabinet represent the richest democratic corporations in the world (cheap shot, corporations payoff both sides of the fence).

So THE GREENEE MEANEES are right the globaL is warming because of us, and when THE GREENEE MEANEES begin to tell us its cooling because of us, (which THE GREENEE MEANEES are bit slow to catch onto, terminology has changed, for your arguement it is now global climate change that way any change supports your fantasy) I concede, so whats the plan, use more oil to make more propene which without you cannot go green.

Renewable energy is renewable as propene, propene only comes from oil, oil from the ground, so run out of oil, your renewable energy is gone. Thats such an oxymoronic statement, windmills always need to be replaced yet they are renewable, solar panels always need to be replaced and they are renewable.

Explain renewable to me brainiacs.

there, I educated you GREENEE MEANEES, now thank me

 

[code1211]

It appears today will be another sweater day.

Dammit!!!!

I'm with you. We've been below average for about 6 weeks. When it comes to Global Warming, I'm in favor of it.

 

[KittenKoder]

It doesn't matter where the stick the thermometer, they can STILL tell whether the trend is up or down wherever they stick it by using anomalies. And any holes in data are accounted for in the margin of error, shown by the grey lines. Longer lines show where the data is less complete.

Wrong answer!

It does matter because you are claiming to report global temps that means you need to have a uniform recording mechanism and you don't. Variations due to siting variances are not controlled for and can't be. I'd like to take a look at some of the sitings in remote Africa and Russia and Mongolia let alone other places. There are so many environmental deviations that are not controlled for by the measuring mechanisms you can't even name them all. Additionally, you could have one site where equipment upgrades or repair have occurred and caused a variance in the elevation of the thermometer which Hansen claims causes serious variation in the temperatures recorded. Unless everyone using the data knows the siting changed on that location, your data from that location loses validity.

It might be different if you were measuring in less fine grained way what the temperature variation is, but when you are showing me shit in tenth and one hundredths of a degree, you better have all of your shit straight 100% and you don't.

So, stop spamming us with your bullshit charts based on bad and incomplete data and stop being a denier!

You can parrot your lies as much as you want, but using ANOMALIES gives accurate data on warming or cooling.

You are confusing who the parrots are. We have shown many different sources, many different sets of data, and offered many possibilities that demonstrate the flaw in your data, but you continue to use the same data from the same sources with no more than the same possibilities and no discussion, which is parroting. So far I have seen only three unique (note the "unique") sources or sets of data, that does not come close to "all inclusive" and demonstrates brainwashing or lack of thought. Most of us opposing GW have now grown tired of doing all the work and seeing only the same bull handed to us, so until more is added, then you can expect nothing more from us seeing as how the dat gathering is very one sided.

 

[code1211]

You are confusing who the parrots are. We have shown many different sources, many different sets of data, and offered many possibilities that demonstrate the flaw in your data, but you continue to use the same data from the same sources with no more than the same possibilities and no discussion, which is parroting. So far I have seen only three unique (note the "unique") sources or sets of data, that does not come close to "all inclusive" and demonstrates brainwashing or lack of thought. Most of us opposing GW have now grown tired of doing all the work and seeing only the same bull handed to us, so until more is added, then you can expect nothing more from us seeing as how the dat gathering is very one sided.

It is interesting that AGW Proponents always seem to come back to the reduction of CO2 as the cure for Global Warming. When pressed on proving the connection thay say that that is not the only cause but that eliminating the cause will be beneficial anyway, so why not do it.

Those of us who doubt based on the proven climatological effects from all sources including CO2, doubt for well founded reasons that are continually dismissed by those who are the proponents. Doubters are called deniers. Doubters deny nothing and are open to all. Proponents hate deniers and yet are constantly denying all of the other (non CO2) factors.

What's wrong with this picture?

 

[edthecynic]

Wrong answer!

It does matter because you are claiming to report global temps that means you need to have a uniform recording mechanism and you don't. Variations due to siting variances are not controlled for and can't be. I'd like to take a look at some of the sitings in remote Africa and Russia and Mongolia let alone other places. There are so many environmental deviations that are not controlled for by the measuring mechanisms you can't even name them all. Additionally, you could have one site where equipment upgrades or repair have occurred and caused a variance in the elevation of the thermometer which Hansen claims causes serious variation in the temperatures recorded. Unless everyone using the data knows the siting changed on that location, your data from that location loses validity.

It might be different if you were measuring in less fine grained way what the temperature variation is, but when you are showing me shit in tenth and one hundredths of a degree, you better have all of your shit straight 100% and you don't.

So, stop spamming us with your bullshit charts based on bad and incomplete data and stop being a denier!

You can parrot your lies as much as you want, but using ANOMALIES gives accurate data on warming or cooling.

You are confusing who the parrots are. We have shown many different sources, many different sets of data, and offered many possibilities that demonstrate the flaw in your data, but you continue to use the same data from the same sources with no more than the same possibilities and no discussion, which is parroting. So far I have seen only three unique (note the "unique") sources or sets of data, that does not come close to "all inclusive" and demonstrates brainwashing or lack of thought. Most of us opposing GW have now grown tired of doing all the work and seeing only the same bull handed to us, so until more is added, then you can expect nothing more from us seeing as how the dat gathering is very one sided.

So far all you've done is pontificate. If you follow what's going on the denier says because you can't be certain what the actual TEMPERATURE is you can't determine whether it's getting colder or warmer. But by using ANOMALIES you can.
With anomalies it doesn't matter what height the thermometer is or if there is asphalt nearby or if it's out of calibration, because anomalies are only the deviations from the previous readings of the same thermometer in the same place what ever height or whatever it is. The charts I gave don't even list an average temp, only a zero point and how much the anomalies deviate hotter or colder from that average.

So discrediting temperature approximations does not discredit warming or cooling trends derived from anomalies.

 

[KittenKoder]

You can parrot your lies as much as you want, but using ANOMALIES gives accurate data on warming or cooling.

You are confusing who the parrots are. We have shown many different sources, many different sets of data, and offered many possibilities that demonstrate the flaw in your data, but you continue to use the same data from the same sources with no more than the same possibilities and no discussion, which is parroting. So far I have seen only three unique (note the "unique") sources or sets of data, that does not come close to "all inclusive" and demonstrates brainwashing or lack of thought. Most of us opposing GW have now grown tired of doing all the work and seeing only the same bull handed to us, so until more is added, then you can expect nothing more from us seeing as how the dat gathering is very one sided.

So far all you've done is pontificate. If you follow what's going on the denier says because you can't be certain what the actual TEMPERATURE is you can't determine whether it's getting colder or warmer. But by using ANOMALIES you can.
With anomalies it doesn't matter what height the thermometer is or if there is asphalt nearby or if it's out of calibration, because anomalies are only the deviations from the previous readings of the same thermometer in the same place what ever height or whatever it is. The charts I gave don't even list an average temp, only a zero point and how much the anomalies deviate hotter or colder from that average.

So discrediting temperature approximations does not discredit warming or cooling trends derived from anomalies.

So ... you basically admitted that you ignored all the opposition instead of actually reading it and thinking about it ... and then again parrot the same crap you have been ... circular arguments are those where no matter what the opposition says, one side keeps returning to the same point trying to start it all over again, usually because they have nothing to stand on.

 

[edthecynic]

You are confusing who the parrots are. We have shown many different sources, many different sets of data, and offered many possibilities that demonstrate the flaw in your data, but you continue to use the same data from the same sources with no more than the same possibilities and no discussion, which is parroting. So far I have seen only three unique (note the "unique") sources or sets of data, that does not come close to "all inclusive" and demonstrates brainwashing or lack of thought. Most of us opposing GW have now grown tired of doing all the work and seeing only the same bull handed to us, so until more is added, then you can expect nothing more from us seeing as how the dat gathering is very one sided.

So far all you've done is pontificate. If you follow what's going on the denier says because you can't be certain what the actual TEMPERATURE is you can't determine whether it's getting colder or warmer. But by using ANOMALIES you can.
With anomalies it doesn't matter what height the thermometer is or if there is asphalt nearby or if it's out of calibration, because anomalies are only the deviations from the previous readings of the same thermometer in the same place what ever height or whatever it is. The charts I gave don't even list an average temp, only a zero point and how much the anomalies deviate hotter or colder from that average.

So discrediting temperature approximations does not discredit warming or cooling trends derived from anomalies.

So ... you basically admitted that you ignored all the opposition instead of actually reading it and thinking about it ... and then again parrot the same crap you have been ... circular arguments are those where no matter what the opposition says, one side keeps returning to the same point trying to start it all over again, usually because they have nothing to stand on.

Sorry, I didn't realize you were just being a troll.