Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
In the race for the hottest calendar year, 1998 still leads with the daily average for 1 Jan to 31 May being +0.65 C in 1998 compared with +0.59 C for 2010. (Note that these are not considered significantly different.) As of 31 May 2010, there have been 151 days in the year. From our calibrated daily data, we find that 1998 was warmer than 2010 on 96 of them.
Roy Spencer, Ph. D.
Since the error with the + and - signs, Dr. Spencer has been a bit more carefull to add notes like the one in red to cover his ass.
No, any legit scientist will do that. You will notice that the warmers will universally cite a .5 degree rise over a 100 year period while ignoring the very simple fact that that is statistically insignificant. But they will howl and yowl about the massive temp increase.
Silly wabbits.
Another example of the complete IGNORANCE required to be a CON$ervoFascist!Just to point out they use temp anomalies for a very specific reason.. To create wiggle room... Anomalies are based on only 130 years or so of data.. Thats it, so anything out of that so-called norm is an anomaly.. meaning anything out of the ordinary for that date and time and region compared to the last 130 or so years, is by default an anomaly.
So an anomaly out of 130 years compared to billions of years we had a climate.... yeah and they call it science.. Edtheeunuch/trollingblunder/chris or whatever he is today is another moron trying to play scientific....
Another example of the complete IGNORANCE required to be a CON$ervoFascist!Just to point out they use temp anomalies for a very specific reason.. To create wiggle room... Anomalies are based on only 130 years or so of data.. Thats it, so anything out of that so-called norm is an anomaly.. meaning anything out of the ordinary for that date and time and region compared to the last 130 or so years, is by default an anomaly.
So an anomaly out of 130 years compared to billions of years we had a climate.... yeah and they call it science.. Edtheeunuch/trollingblunder/chris or whatever he is today is another moron trying to play scientific....
Anomalies have nothing to do with "wiggle room" you moron!
If you have hundreds of temperature stations all over the world, what do you think are the odds of every thermometer being exactly calibrated to each other? ZERO!!!! Since scientists are not stupid morons like CON$, they use a thirty year average for each particular station as the standard for that station and then measure the deviation from that standard which is an anomaly. If the trend is up or down it will show up accurately in the anomalies for that station no matter how inaccurate the thermometer might be relative to any other thermometer.
Please leave the science to the scientists.
Thank you.
Again, anomalies have nothing to do with "wiggle room." They are a method of calibration to accurately show a TREND. They are calibrated to a 30 year average, the data showing the trend was collected over the 130 year period. That is the period of DIRECT INSTRUMENT MEASUREMENT. Any data older than that comes from PROXY data which is not nearly as reliable or as global as the direct instrument measurements, so it is wrong to equate the two, which is exactly why deniers do it.Another example of the complete IGNORANCE required to be a CON$ervoFascist!Just to point out they use temp anomalies for a very specific reason.. To create wiggle room... Anomalies are based on only 130 years or so of data.. Thats it, so anything out of that so-called norm is an anomaly.. meaning anything out of the ordinary for that date and time and region compared to the last 130 or so years, is by default an anomaly.
So an anomaly out of 130 years compared to billions of years we had a climate.... yeah and they call it science.. Edtheeunuch/trollingblunder/chris or whatever he is today is another moron trying to play scientific....
Anomalies have nothing to do with "wiggle room" you moron!
If you have hundreds of temperature stations all over the world, what do you think are the odds of every thermometer being exactly calibrated to each other? ZERO!!!! Since scientists are not stupid morons like CON$, they use a thirty year average for each particular station as the standard for that station and then measure the deviation from that standard which is an anomaly. If the trend is up or down it will show up accurately in the anomalies for that station no matter how inaccurate the thermometer might be relative to any other thermometer.
Please leave the science to the scientists.
Thank you.
LOL, you really didn't understand what I said or what it meant did you....
Edtheeunuch best to leave thinking to people who can do it. I said the following..
"Anomalies are based on only 130 years or so of data.. Thats it, so anything out of that so-called norm is an anomaly.. meaning anything out of the ordinary for that date and time and region compared to the last 130 or so years, is by default an anomaly. "
Notice the part about anomalies based on 130 years? Or the part where I mentioned "that date and time and region? Yeah...
So the norm comes from 130 years of data for each region retard, i didnt say they were all calibrated to zero or the same you idiot.. They take 30 years? Really? Well then thats even worse than 130 years isn't it dumbass... Jesus dude you trying to wreck all the credibility in this overnight?
Dam you are the same idiot no matter what lame ass identity you try and use....
Again, anomalies have nothing to do with "wiggle room." They are a method of calibration to accurately show a TREND. They are calibrated to a 30 year average, the data showing the trend was collected over the 130 year period. That is the period of DIRECT INSTRUMENT MEASUREMENT. Any data older than that comes from PROXY data which is not nearly as reliable or as global as the direct instrument measurements, so it is wrong to equate the two, which is exactly why deniers do it.Another example of the complete IGNORANCE required to be a CON$ervoFascist!
Anomalies have nothing to do with "wiggle room" you moron!
If you have hundreds of temperature stations all over the world, what do you think are the odds of every thermometer being exactly calibrated to each other? ZERO!!!! Since scientists are not stupid morons like CON$, they use a thirty year average for each particular station as the standard for that station and then measure the deviation from that standard which is an anomaly. If the trend is up or down it will show up accurately in the anomalies for that station no matter how inaccurate the thermometer might be relative to any other thermometer.
Please leave the science to the scientists.
Thank you.
LOL, you really didn't understand what I said or what it meant did you....
Edtheeunuch best to leave thinking to people who can do it. I said the following..
"Anomalies are based on only 130 years or so of data.. Thats it, so anything out of that so-called norm is an anomaly.. meaning anything out of the ordinary for that date and time and region compared to the last 130 or so years, is by default an anomaly. "
Notice the part about anomalies based on 130 years? Or the part where I mentioned "that date and time and region? Yeah...
So the norm comes from 130 years of data for each region retard, i didnt say they were all calibrated to zero or the same you idiot.. They take 30 years? Really? Well then thats even worse than 130 years isn't it dumbass... Jesus dude you trying to wreck all the credibility in this overnight?
Dam you are the same idiot no matter what lame ass identity you try and use....
ELEPHANTSHIT!Again, anomalies have nothing to do with "wiggle room." They are a method of calibration to accurately show a TREND. They are calibrated to a 30 year average, the data showing the trend was collected over the 130 year period. That is the period of DIRECT INSTRUMENT MEASUREMENT. Any data older than that comes from PROXY data which is not nearly as reliable or as global as the direct instrument measurements, so it is wrong to equate the two, which is exactly why deniers do it.LOL, you really didn't understand what I said or what it meant did you....
Edtheeunuch best to leave thinking to people who can do it. I said the following..
"Anomalies are based on only 130 years or so of data.. Thats it, so anything out of that so-called norm is an anomaly.. meaning anything out of the ordinary for that date and time and region compared to the last 130 or so years, is by default an anomaly. "
Notice the part about anomalies based on 130 years? Or the part where I mentioned "that date and time and region? Yeah...
So the norm comes from 130 years of data for each region retard, i didnt say they were all calibrated to zero or the same you idiot.. They take 30 years? Really? Well then thats even worse than 130 years isn't it dumbass... Jesus dude you trying to wreck all the credibility in this overnight?
Dam you are the same idiot no matter what lame ass identity you try and use....
BULLSHIT!
They use anomalies so they can paint any picture they choose... If not they wouldn't bother the 30 years especially of the "norms" are already taken from the 130 years of temps.. It allows them multiple ways to classify and de-classify anomalies as such...
You want to play smart why not actually show some of it and think...
Since the error with the + and - signs, Dr. Spencer has been a bit more carefull to add notes like the one in red to cover his ass.
No, any legit scientist will do that. You will notice that the warmers will universally cite a .5 degree rise over a 100 year period while ignoring the very simple fact that that is statistically insignificant. But they will howl and yowl about the massive temp increase.
Silly wabbits.
How can they KNOW that it's statistically insignifcant without having the statistics over time (and the standard deviations from the norms over time) to determine what SIGNFICANT means?
They cannot.
No, any legit scientist will do that. You will notice that the warmers will universally cite a .5 degree rise over a 100 year period while ignoring the very simple fact that that is statistically insignificant. But they will howl and yowl about the massive temp increase.
Silly wabbits.
How can they KNOW that it's statistically insignifcant without having the statistics over time (and the standard deviations from the norms over time) to determine what SIGNFICANT means?
They cannot.
You my good man need to take a class in statistics.
And here is a little bit of logic for you the warmers are worried spitless that the ice caps are going to melt and drown the world..right? However, 91% of the worlds glacial ice is in Antarctica. The average temperature in Antarctica is -40 degrees celcius. The melting point of ice is 0 degree's celsius. That means for the ice to melt the temp worldwide has to rise 40 degree's C Nowhere in the wildest fantasy of the warmers has the rise in temp been greater than 5 or 6 degrees. So where is all the additional melt water going to come from? old frauds rear end?
And you are full of shit, Sinatra. This is what NASA says. What is your source?
NASA - Is Antarctica Melting?
Is Antarctica Melting?01.12.10
The continent of Antarctica has been losing more than 100 cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice per year since 2002.
Larger Image
There has been lots of talk lately about Antarctica and whether or not the continent's giant ice sheet is melting. One new paper 1, which states theres less surface melting recently than in past years, has been cited as "proof" that theres no global warming. Other evidence that the amount of sea ice around Antarctica seems to be increasing slightly 2-4 is being used in the same way. But both of these data points are misleading. Gravity data collected from space using NASA's Grace satellite show that Antarctica has been losing more than a hundred cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice each year since 2002. The latest data reveal that Antarctica is losing ice at an accelerating rate, too. How is it possible for surface melting to decrease, but for the continent to lose mass anyway? The answer boils down to the fact that ice can flow without melting.
The Antarctic ice sheet. East Antarctica is much higher in elevation than West Antarctica.
Larger Image
Two-thirds of Antarctica is a high, cold desert. Known as East Antarctica, this section has an average altitude of about 2 kilometer (1.2 miles), higher than the American Colorado Plateau. There is a continent about the size of Australia underneath all this ice; the ice sheet sitting on top averages at a little over 2 kilometer (1.2 miles) thick. If all of this ice melted, it would raise global sea level by about 60 meter (197 feet). But little, if any, surface warming is occurring over East Antarctica. Radar and laser-based satellite data show a little mass loss at the edges of East Antarctica, which is being partly offset by accumulation of snow in the interior, although a very recent result from the NASA/German Aerospace Center's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (Grace) suggests that since 2006 there has been more ice loss from East Antarctica than previously thought 5. Overall, not much is going on in East Antarctica -- yet.
Ah, our two idiot children are once again selling their conspiracy theory. They, and Frank, will soon be visiting Frank's hollow moon.
Suckee....., the satellites that measure the sea ice are measuring something differant than the satellites that measure the thickness of the continental ice caps using variations in the gravity. Both the Greenland Cap, and the Antarctic Cap are losing ice mass by the tens of cubic miles.
The sea ice around Antarctica has increased in extent during the Anarctic winter. Yet the increase has been very small compared to the loss of ice in the Arctic.
Polar Sea Ice Cap and Snow - Cryosphere Today
Ah, our two idiot children are once again selling their conspiracy theory. They, and Frank, will soon be visiting Frank's hollow moon.
Suckee....., the satellites that measure the sea ice are measuring something differant than the satellites that measure the thickness of the continental ice caps using variations in the gravity. Both the Greenland Cap, and the Antarctic Cap are losing ice mass by the tens of cubic miles.
The sea ice around Antarctica has increased in extent during the Anarctic winter. Yet the increase has been very small compared to the loss of ice in the Arctic.
Polar Sea Ice Cap and Snow - Cryosphere Today