Sea Surface Temps Continue Plunge

Does no one think that all that ground up plastic in the ocean does not impact solar heat absorption rates? Reflectivity?
 
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....
 
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.

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.
 
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!

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.
 
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!

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....:lol::lol:

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....:lol:
 
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!

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....:lol::lol:

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....:lol:
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....:lol::lol:

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....:lol:
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.

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...
 
LOL, you really didn't understand what I said or what it meant did you....:lol::lol:

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....:lol:
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.

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...
ELEPHANTSHIT!

You are proof CON$ are STUPID rather than iGNORANT. Ignorant people lack information but can learn when they have access to the info they lack, but stupid CON$ never learn even when given the info they lack.

NCDC: Global Surface Temperature Anomalies

Background Information - FAQ

1. What is a temperature anomaly?

The term “temperature anomaly” means a departure from a reference value or long-term average. A positive anomaly indicates that the observed temperature was warmer than the reference value, while a negative anomaly indicates that the observed temperature was cooler than the reference value.

2. What can the mean global temperature anomaly be used for?

This product is a global-scale climate diagnostic tool and provides a big picture overview of average global temperatures compared to a reference value.

6. Why use temperature anomalies (departure from average) and not absolute temperature measurements?

Absolute estimates of global average surface temperature are difficult to compile for several reasons. Some regions have few temperature measurement stations (e.g., the Sahara Desert) and interpolation must be made over large, data-sparse regions. In mountainous areas, most observations come from the inhabited valleys, so the effect of elevation on a region’s average temperature must be considered as well. For example, a summer month over an area may be cooler than average, both at a mountain top and in a nearby valley, but the absolute temperatures will be quite different at the two locations. The use of anomalies in this case will show that temperatures for both locations were below average.

Using reference values computed on smaller [more local] scales over the same time period establishes a baseline from which anomalies are calculated. This effectively normalizes the data so they can be compared and combined to more accurately represent temperature patterns with respect to what is normal for different places within a region.

For these reasons, large-area summaries incorporate anomalies, not the temperature itself. Anomalies more accurately describe climate variability over larger areas than absolute temperatures do, and they give a frame of reference that allows more meaningful comparisons between locations and more accurate calculations of temperature trends.
 
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.




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?
 
Last edited:
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 the Antarctic is accumulating more ice, not less!!!!!!
 
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 there’s less surface melting recently than in past years, has been cited as "proof" that there’s 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.
 
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 there’s less surface melting recently than in past years, has been cited as "proof" that there’s 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.

Yes, Yes , yes its increasing but its not by this or that special kind of measurement... Tell me genius why is it the standard satellites (the ones showing increased ice in Antarctica) are the ones used to show ice in the Arctic but in the Antarctic its not good enough? Well, the reason is simple.. Those oh so accurate satellites do not give the desired results they want to show melting so they go and use ones that can be used to show it somehow...

Also, volume measurements of ice (thickness) as your article tries to use are mostly effected by precipitation.. Meaning it depends on snowfall more so than subtle variances in temperature to increase... And what is it they do not get much of in Antarctica as a whole? Why Snow of course.... Antarctica is one of the driest continents on earth.. Annual Snow fall is on average between 2 and 8 inches..

So less snow falling on top means to make ice with.. What you think the Sea around Antarctica makes the ice? Funny but its mostly land, and that means no sea ice on the land..

The terrain and geology of antarctica is a mess of extremes. From volcanoes and mountains to desert like flat sheets of ice for miles and miles. So making any assumptions on its ice is a joke...

So oldsocks once again we see you posting crap designed to sell AGW.. And NASA has once again sold their integrity for politics...
 
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

No shit moron and they do it for the exact reason I gave....

Keep posting your PR asshole, its all you can do... Thinking and using your dam mind is too scary for you algorians...:lol:
 
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





And yet we are at least two orders of magnitude smarter than you old fraud. That must just piss the crap out of you don't it!:lol::lol::lol:
 
The Antarctic has so much ice!!!

Global Warmer Kooks!!!! :)


current.365.south.jpg
 

Forum List

Back
Top