How those record temperatures were derived

[CrusaderFrank]

Well you are not blind and you only pretend to be stupid so you must be lying.

Clearly the last column representing the last century is dramatically higher than the previous 100 year columns in all the continents except Australia.

You obviously lie to yourself as well as everyone else.

Hey! There's progress! You actually looked at the chart on Figure 3 this time!!

Do you finally see how stupid you sounded previously?

Like I said, you know you're lying.

You said all continents showed a steady rise over the 500 year period when the chart you pretend to be too stupid to understand shows only Australia to have a steady rise.

Originally Posted by CrusaderFrank

Figure 3 shows a steady rise on all continents since the 1500's. That is indisputable.

Ed, can you count to 3? I said Figure 3, it's right after 2.

If I could post just the chart you would probably die of embarrassment because you're either not looking at Figure 3 (three, tre) or are just an idiot

 

[westwall]

Well, if you look at the natural pattern of Ice Ages and interglacial warm periods, each warm period was 10,000 years or less. This present one is now 12,000 years long. The Little Ice Age would have fit the natural cycle for the next full blown Ice Age, but SOMETHING interrupted it right around the time of the I R.

This is not true. Below is a link to one of the better studies on glacial ages and they have been able to determine that there were 4 glacial periods and if you look down at the graph your 10,000 year period is for only one interglacial period (the penultimate one as it happens) that between the Tioga and the Tenaya. Then the next interglacial from the Tenaya to the Tahoe 2 interglacial was 88,000 years. Then from the Tahoe 2 to the Tahoe 1 was another 70,000 years give or take.

So your interglacial figures are way off.

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/geog/downloads/297/240.pdf


EDIT: I should have said recent glacial periods.

My interglacial figures are from Antarctic ice cores, yours are for one tiny area in California.

Continental glaciation is continental glaciation. There are analogs with the California glacial periods all across the US and Europe. They are just better defined in the Owens Valley than anywhere else in the world. The glacial periods all have different names depending on where you are in the world but they all correlate to the same time frames.

 

[edthecynic]

Hey! There's progress! You actually looked at the chart on Figure 3 this time!!

Do you finally see how stupid you sounded previously?

Like I said, you know you're lying.

You said all continents showed a steady rise over the 500 year period when the chart you pretend to be too stupid to understand shows only Australia to have a steady rise.

Originally Posted by CrusaderFrank

Figure 3 shows a steady rise on all continents since the 1500's. That is indisputable.

Ed, can you count to 3? I said Figure 3, it's right after 2.

If I could post just the chart you would probably die of embarrassment because you're either not looking at Figure 3 (three, tre) or are just an idiot

No matter how dumb you pretend to be, you are still a liar.

Figure 3 shows a map of the world with a 5 column bar graph on each continent. Each of the 5 bars represents 100 years. The only bar graph that shows a steady rise over the 500 years is Australia. All the rest show a dramatically greater rise in the last bar than the 4 previous bars. And again the text in your link clearly says 80% of the rise in temp came in the 19th and 20th centuries, which means only 20% of the rise came in the previous 3 centuries.

Only a CON$ervaTard would call that a steady rise in temp for 500 years.

 

[code1211]

if the record is within the measuring system of this one station, then it does not matter if there is asphalt etc.

unless they added the asphalt between the time point of the previous record point and the current.

duh.

Well give the person a ceegar 'cause that's exactly what has occured!

link, and please to the source not to the root homepage.

The relatively reliable instrument record has been kept since about 1880. The population of the US at time was about 50 million with a little change. Now we are at what? 330 million? The rest of the world has gained a few heads also.

It is irrational to think that the growth of cities and the accompanying pavement of anything flat enough to drive on did not increase exponentially during this time.

If you ever walk outside in the sunshine in the city, you can feel the heat rising from grass, cement, blacktop and the differences in the amount of heat rising.

Heat islands are not a figment of the imagination. they are real things.

Now, unless we assume that everyone measuring a temperature in 1880 was living 50 miles away from anything, it is reasonable to assume that if the station has not moved, then the paved city has grown around it.

What I find interesting is that in spite of the intuitively obvious fact that heat islands will cause temperature readings to rise, GISS and NASA have adjusted all of the post heat island temperatures up and all of the pre heat island down.

In effect, they are telling us that the raw data is suspect and only the adjusted conclusions based on the adjusted data based on the real data based on the ailing eyesight of the scientists who took a break from their physiogomy experiments is good.

Alrighty, then!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record_(NASA).svg

 

[edthecynic]

Well give the person a ceegar 'cause that's exactly what has occured!

link, and please to the source not to the root homepage.

The relatively reliable instrument record has been kept since about 1880. The population of the US at time was about 50 million with a little change. Now we are at what? 330 million? The rest of the world has gained a few heads also.

It is irrational to think that the growth of cities and the accompanying pavement of anything flat enough to drive on did not increase exponentially during this time.

If you ever walk outside in the sunshine in the city, you can feel the heat rising from grass, cement, blacktop and the differences in the amount of heat rising.

Heat islands are not a figment of the imagination. they are real things.

Now, unless we assume that everyone measuring a temperature in 1880 was living 50 miles away from anything, it is reasonable to assume that if the station has not moved, then the paved city has grown around it.

What I find interesting is that in spite of the intuitively obvious fact that heat islands will cause temperature readings to rise, GISS and NASA have adjusted all of the post heat island temperatures up and all of the pre heat island down.

In effect, they are telling us that the raw data is suspect and only the adjusted conclusions based on the adjusted data based on the real data based on the ailing eyesight of the scientists who took a break from their physiogomy experiments is good.

Alrighty, then!


File:Instrumental Temperature Record (NASA).svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Again they must by adjusting correctly since the surface temp data matches the satellite data collected by deniers Christy and Spencer at UAH, and we know there are no heat islands in space!!!

 

[westwall]

link, and please to the source not to the root homepage.

The relatively reliable instrument record has been kept since about 1880. The population of the US at time was about 50 million with a little change. Now we are at what? 330 million? The rest of the world has gained a few heads also.

It is irrational to think that the growth of cities and the accompanying pavement of anything flat enough to drive on did not increase exponentially during this time.

If you ever walk outside in the sunshine in the city, you can feel the heat rising from grass, cement, blacktop and the differences in the amount of heat rising.

Heat islands are not a figment of the imagination. they are real things.

Now, unless we assume that everyone measuring a temperature in 1880 was living 50 miles away from anything, it is reasonable to assume that if the station has not moved, then the paved city has grown around it.

What I find interesting is that in spite of the intuitively obvious fact that heat islands will cause temperature readings to rise, GISS and NASA have adjusted all of the post heat island temperatures up and all of the pre heat island down.

In effect, they are telling us that the raw data is suspect and only the adjusted conclusions based on the adjusted data based on the real data based on the ailing eyesight of the scientists who took a break from their physiogomy experiments is good.

Alrighty, then!


File:Instrumental Temperature Record (NASA).svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Again they must by adjusting correctly since the surface temp data matches the satellite data collected by deniers Christy and Spencer at UAH, and we know there are no heat islands in space!!!

No but surprisingly there IS global warming on the moon...in the absence of CO2...go figure!

http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/Greenhouse_Effect_on_the_Moon.pdf

 

[edthecynic]

The relatively reliable instrument record has been kept since about 1880. The population of the US at time was about 50 million with a little change. Now we are at what? 330 million? The rest of the world has gained a few heads also.

It is irrational to think that the growth of cities and the accompanying pavement of anything flat enough to drive on did not increase exponentially during this time.

If you ever walk outside in the sunshine in the city, you can feel the heat rising from grass, cement, blacktop and the differences in the amount of heat rising.

Heat islands are not a figment of the imagination. they are real things.

Now, unless we assume that everyone measuring a temperature in 1880 was living 50 miles away from anything, it is reasonable to assume that if the station has not moved, then the paved city has grown around it.

What I find interesting is that in spite of the intuitively obvious fact that heat islands will cause temperature readings to rise, GISS and NASA have adjusted all of the post heat island temperatures up and all of the pre heat island down.

In effect, they are telling us that the raw data is suspect and only the adjusted conclusions based on the adjusted data based on the real data based on the ailing eyesight of the scientists who took a break from their physiogomy experiments is good.

Alrighty, then!


File:Instrumental Temperature Record (NASA).svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Again they must by adjusting correctly since the surface temp data matches the satellite data collected by deniers Christy and Spencer at UAH, and we know there are no heat islands in space!!!

No but surprisingly there IS global warming on the moon...in the absence of CO2...go figure!

http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/Greenhouse_Effect_on_the_Moon.pdf

Not only do solid surfaces challenge the blackbody premise, however, but gases too. The atmosphere of
every planet in our solar system is also 'warmer than predicted’.

Your source says every planet in our solar system is warmer than predicted, but Uranus is cooler than predicted.
Go figure.

http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~layoung/eprint/ur149/Young2001Uranus.pdf

From two probes of the Uranian upper atmosphere in November 6, 1998, we derive equivalent isothermal temperatures of 116.7 ± 7.9 K for immersion, and 124.8 ± 15.5 K for emersion, indicating that the warming trend observed between 1977 and 1983 has reversed. If interpreted as a purely temporal change, the 1998 observations indicate a cooling rate of 3 K yr−1. This cooling rate cannot be caused by radiative processes alone. Thus, the observations presented here strongly suggest that there is a nonradiative energy sink in the Uranian upper atmosphere. Possibilities for the sink include thermal conduction to the stratosphere, and adiabatic cooling.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Like I said, you know you're lying.

You said all continents showed a steady rise over the 500 year period when the chart you pretend to be too stupid to understand shows only Australia to have a steady rise.

Ed, can you count to 3? I said Figure 3, it's right after 2.

If I could post just the chart you would probably die of embarrassment because you're either not looking at Figure 3 (three, tre) or are just an idiot

No matter how dumb you pretend to be, you are still a liar.

Figure 3 shows a map of the world with a 5 column bar graph on each continent. Each of the 5 bars represents 100 years. The only bar graph that shows a steady rise over the 500 years is Australia. All the rest show a dramatically greater rise in the last bar than the 4 previous bars. And again the text in your link clearly says 80% of the rise in temp came in the 19th and 20th centuries, which means only 20% of the rise came in the previous 3 centuries.

Only a CON$ervaTard would call that a steady rise in temp for 500 years.

Hopeless. Totally hopeless.

You're either retarded or a liar or both. Have fun in the Psych Ward.

I feel bad for the electrons that I'm wasting now even responding to you, responding being a vast overstatement because it assumes there's some cobweb of intellect strung up on your end of the conversation to catch it.

Adios, dickwad! I won't be talking to you about this again and once the chart gets posted everyone is going to know you're a liar AND an idiot.

 

[edthecynic]

Ed, can you count to 3? I said Figure 3, it's right after 2.

If I could post just the chart you would probably die of embarrassment because you're either not looking at Figure 3 (three, tre) or are just an idiot

No matter how dumb you pretend to be, you are still a liar.

Figure 3 shows a map of the world with a 5 column bar graph on each continent. Each of the 5 bars represents 100 years. The only bar graph that shows a steady rise over the 500 years is Australia. All the rest show a dramatically greater rise in the last bar than the 4 previous bars. And again the text in your link clearly says 80% of the rise in temp came in the 19th and 20th centuries, which means only 20% of the rise came in the previous 3 centuries.

Only a CON$ervaTard would call that a steady rise in temp for 500 years.

Hopeless. Totally hopeless.

You're either retarded or a liar or both. Have fun in the Psych Ward.

I feel bad for the electrons that I'm wasting now even responding to you, responding being a vast overstatement because it assumes there's some cobweb of intellect strung up on your end of the conversation to catch it.

Adios, dickwad! I won't be talking to you about this again and once the chart gets posted everyone is going to know you're a liar AND an idiot.

The link has been posted several times and each time figure 3 shows the same thing I said.

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~peter/Resources/Seminar/readings/Huang_boreholeTemp_Nature'00.pdf

But you at least serve as an example of how CON$ obey their master's command shown in the first quote in my sig.
Thank you.

 

[JBeukema]

we know there are no heat islands in space!!!

Star - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[skookerasbil]

Watts Up With That has a very good analysis of the weather stations that were used to generate the "record" temperatures. Interestingly if you look further down you will see where the tarmac at the airports where the stations are located reached a very impressive 192 degrees! Yowch! Think that might have had an effect on the temperature readings?

NNNNNAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWW

L......M......B......O



Rocks is pwned again!!!