Climate Basics

[TroglocratsRdumb]

There is a huge margin of error in measuring the earth's present average temperature.
But when they attempt to speculate what the earth's average temperature was in the past that margin of error goes up dramatically.
Man made global warming is just a weak hypothesis and we should not be making any economic decisions based upon it.
The corrupt Left Wing politicians use man made global warming FEAR as their political tool to maintain their power and to line their pockets.

 

[Flash]

Most of the historical temperature data was measured at a few universities, located in or near big cities in the Northern Hemisphere.

Not even close to being representative of earth.

Even the satellite data now is flawed because the temperature senors on the detectors can't be calibrated to the tolerances needed to measure any real change.

OP is absolutely correct. We don't have any real data on what the temperature of the earth is. At least not historically.

 

[mamooth]

Global warming isn't about surface temperatures.. The heat is supposed to be fairly uniformly distributed THROUGHOUT the lower tropospehere.. The back rad comes from heating of the lower atmosphere... So that's where you SHOULD look..

Well, no. Most of the heat is in the oceans. But we don't live in the oceans, or in the mid-troposphere. We live on the surface, so it makes sense to measure the surface temperature.

There are too many confounding altitude corrections and effects from the type of surface beneath the land based sensor.. And the network of land based sensors have MASSIVE HOLE in them in Africa and South America and the higher latitudes.. SO bad that it temps "interterpretive modeling"... To extract favorable results. It's SO bad that "reanalysis" is now the operating paradigm which TOSSES the ACTUAL data and "models" the expected results...

And about 60% of the 15,000 thermometers are in the USA or Europe... But they can pick and choose from them to get "favorable results"...

Conspiracy nonsense.

Meanwhile the 10 or 12 sats paint a CONSISTENT grid (about 25 miles sq) around the ENTIRE globe... Data taken twice a day for ENTIRE grid at precise timing..

And then that data is run through a model with multiple fudge factors. And UAH in particularly is a wild outlier on the cold side, disagreeing with all other data sets, including the weather balloons.Yet you still choose to believe in it exclusively.

You can go with NOAA and their "newest" remake of 18th century "ship intake measurements" and the multi--thousand analysts and data cookers revising 80 yr temperatures morning noon or night.. Or go with RSS and UAH and the dozen folks at each who have the algorithms dialed in and don't **** with them but every third year or so...

RSS is on v4, UAH on v6. They both change their algorithms more often than surface temps do. If consistency is your goal, you should be choosing surface temps. However, consistency isn't your goal. Massaging the data to agree with your political beliefs is your goal, so you choose UAH, even if it is the most wild outlier and the most heavily fudged.

You're a complete moron.. The 30s and 40s have been COOLED so that the total ANOMALY looks worse..

Your statement there is the precise opposite of reality. The past has been made warmer, making the warming look smaller.

You're clearly not aware of the basics of the topic being discussed. It looks like you're reciting conspiracy blog fables. So why should anyone pay attention to anything you say?

You can't even SEE El Nino efffects in the GISS/NOAA/Hadley data anymore.. They've completely screwed it... And since they've gone with giving "ship buckets" and balloons and all the OTHER 18th 19th century tech -- and given them EQUAL WEIGHT to the fancy hi tech sea based buoys like idiots would, they've DEPARTED from the gloriously satisfying AGREEMENT that surface based measurements USED TO HAVE with the satellite fleet...

And those things were THERE up to about 1998... Now they are gone.. MASSIVE changes of up to more than 0.5 DegC -- coming and going in about 3 years time -- don't even APPEAR in the official surface record...

You're just rambling there. None of that appears to reflect reality in any way.

It's all designed for idiots like you who shun space science and like those chad ballots...

When a point I often make is how that denialism is just another flavor of extremist right wing kook conspiracy theory, then confirming it like that was probably not your best choice.

 

[baileyn45]

Can anyone explain to me how the average temperature of planet Earth is derived? And I don't want the opinion of this scientist or that scientist. I want the systems, networks and data points. I ask because as of this point I'm appalled by that what is commonly referred to. I'm particularly interested in how current data is compared to past data.

Notice how much data we dont have..




View attachment 279970

I'm going to guess that that is today. Now compare that to 1920, 1820, 1020. Apples to orange, apples to bricks, apples to ,,,,,

Read it..


Look at the number of years in service on the bottom.. it's what you are saying.


.

Can anyone explain to me how the average temperature of planet Earth is derived? And I don't want the opinion of this scientist or that scientist. I want the systems, networks and data points. I ask because as of this point I'm appalled by that what is commonly referred to. I'm particularly interested in how current data is compared to past data.

Notice how much data we dont have..




View attachment 279970

I'm going to guess that that is today. Now compare that to 1920, 1820, 1020. Apples to orange, apples to bricks, apples to ,,,,,

Read it..


Look at the number of years in service on the bottom.. it's what you are saying.


.

And the coverage of planet Earth would be?

Can anyone explain to me how the average temperature of planet Earth is derived? And I don't want the opinion of this scientist or that scientist. I want the systems, networks and data points. I ask because as of this point I'm appalled by that what is commonly referred to. I'm particularly interested in how current data is compared to past data.

Notice how much data we dont have..




View attachment 279970

I'm going to guess that that is today. Now compare that to 1920, 1820, 1020. Apples to orange, apples to bricks, apples to ,,,,,

Read it..


Look at the number of years in service on the bottom.. it's what you are saying.


.

And the coverage of planet Earth? The number of sites that were previously rural and are now urban. The problems are endless. Not even remotely "scientific".

 

[baileyn45]

Global warming isn't about surface temperatures.. The heat is supposed to be fairly uniformly distributed THROUGHOUT the lower tropospehere.. The back rad comes from heating of the lower atmosphere... So that's where you SHOULD look..

Well, no. Most of the heat is in the oceans. But we don't live in the oceans, or in the mid-troposphere. We live on the surface, so it makes sense to measure the surface temperature.

There are too many confounding altitude corrections and effects from the type of surface beneath the land based sensor.. And the network of land based sensors have MASSIVE HOLE in them in Africa and South America and the higher latitudes.. SO bad that it temps "interterpretive modeling"... To extract favorable results. It's SO bad that "reanalysis" is now the operating paradigm which TOSSES the ACTUAL data and "models" the expected results...

And about 60% of the 15,000 thermometers are in the USA or Europe... But they can pick and choose from them to get "favorable results"...

Conspiracy nonsense.

Meanwhile the 10 or 12 sats paint a CONSISTENT grid (about 25 miles sq) around the ENTIRE globe... Data taken twice a day for ENTIRE grid at precise timing..

And then that data is run through a model with multiple fudge factors. And UAH in particularly is a wild outlier on the cold side, disagreeing with all other data sets, including the weather balloons.Yet you still choose to believe in it exclusively.

You can go with NOAA and their "newest" remake of 18th century "ship intake measurements" and the multi--thousand analysts and data cookers revising 80 yr temperatures morning noon or night.. Or go with RSS and UAH and the dozen folks at each who have the algorithms dialed in and don't **** with them but every third year or so...

RSS is on v4, UAH on v6. They both change their algorithms more often than surface temps do. If consistency is your goal, you should be choosing surface temps. However, consistency isn't your goal. Massaging the data to agree with your political beliefs is your goal, so you choose UAH, even if it is the most wild outlier and the most heavily fudged.

You're a complete moron.. The 30s and 40s have been COOLED so that the total ANOMALY looks worse..

Your statement there is the precise opposite of reality. The past has been made warmer, making the warming look smaller.

You're clearly not aware of the basics of the topic being discussed. It looks like you're reciting conspiracy blog fables. So why should anyone pay attention to anything you say?

You can't even SEE El Nino efffects in the GISS/NOAA/Hadley data anymore.. They've completely screwed it... And since they've gone with giving "ship buckets" and balloons and all the OTHER 18th 19th century tech -- and given them EQUAL WEIGHT to the fancy hi tech sea based buoys like idiots would, they've DEPARTED from the gloriously satisfying AGREEMENT that surface based measurements USED TO HAVE with the satellite fleet...

And those things were THERE up to about 1998... Now they are gone.. MASSIVE changes of up to more than 0.5 DegC -- coming and going in about 3 years time -- don't even APPEAR in the official surface record...

You're just rambling there. None of that appears to reflect reality in any way.

It's all designed for idiots like you who shun space science and like those chad ballots...

When a point I often make is how that denialism is just another flavor of extremist right wing kook conspiracy theory, then confirming it like that was probably not your best choice.

Your graph comes from HAD...., have you ever read up on this stuff? Researchers are adjusting readings from canvas buckets, then insulated buckets, then buoys. None of them have global coverage. At the end of the day we're comparing guesses to guesses to more guesses. How this crap is even considered in rational discussions is absurd. How much of the ocean is covered by buoys today? And we're going to compare this to buckets dipped from the occasional ship in a shipping lane 100 years ago? A bucket that may or may not have been insulated, handled by a guy that may or may not have done it, or given a f###.? This is science? I'm to the point now that this is no longer about global warming, it's about the integrity of science.

 

[baileyn45]

The satellite record has been around since 1979... There are 2 independent "data processors" for the satellite fleet Univ Alabama at Huntsville and RSS... They use entirely different algorithms for data prep but have always agreed extraordinarly well..

No, they haven't. UAH, run by a denier shill, recently massaged their algorithm so that it reads far colder than anything. It now disagrees bigly with everything, including weather balloon data.

The satellite record can't really be messed with.. Like trying to correct land-based measurements from the 1930s every month of the current year.. They are VERY precisely obtained on the satellite paths every time at the exact same times of day.. And they measure MORE of the atmospheric "lower troposphere" than a thermometer on an 8 ft pole..

The satellites don't measure surface temperature. They measure a mixture of tropospheric temps. And they use a very complex model with a lot of fudge factors to tease temp out of microwave measurements, so they are correctly regarded as the least reliable data.

It's just common sense that, if you want to measure surface temperatures, you measure temperatures at the surface. You don't measure a mixture of mid-tropospheric temps and then try to invent a model to make that into surface temps.

Global warming isn't about surface temperatures.. The heat is supposed to be fairly uniformly distributed THROUGHOUT the lower tropospehere.. The back rad comes from heating of the lower atmosphere... So that's where you SHOULD look..

There are too many confounding altitude corrections and effects from the type of surface beneath the land based sensor.. And the network of land based sensors have MASSIVE HOLE in them in Africa and South America and the higher latitudes.. SO bad that it temps "interterpretive modeling"... To extract favorable results. It's SO bad that "reanalysis" is now the operating paradigm which TOSSES the ACTUAL data and "models" the expected results...

And about 60% of the 15,000 thermometers are in the USA or Europe... But they can pick and choose from them to get "favorable results"...

Meanwhile the 10 or 12 sats paint a CONSISTENT grid (about 25 miles sq) around the ENTIRE globe... Data taken twice a day for ENTIRE grid at precise timing..

You can go with NOAA and their "newest" remake of 18th century "ship intake measurements" and the multi--thousand analysts and data cookers revising 80 yr temperatures morning noon or night.. Or go with RSS and UAH and the dozen folks at each who have the algorithms dialed in and don't **** with them but every third year or so...

It's not debatable that the adjustments make the warming look smaller. Under your conspiracy theory, the scientists all conspired to fix the data to make the warming look smaller. Why would they do that?

You're a complete moron.. The 30s and 40s have been COOLED so that the total ANOMALY looks worse.. You can't even SEE El Nino efffects in the GISS/NOAA/Hadley data anymore.. They've completely screwed it... And since they've gone with giving "ship buckets" and balloons and all the OTHER 18th 19th century tech -- and given them EQUAL WEIGHT to the fancy hi tech sea based buoys like idiots would, they've DEPARTED from the gloriously satisfying AGREEMENT that surface based measurements USED TO HAVE with the satellite fleet...

And those things were THERE up to about 1998... Now they are gone.. MASSIVE changes of up to more than 0.5 DegC -- coming and going in about 3 years time -- don't even APPEAR in the official surface record...

It's all designed for idiots like you who shun space science and like those chad ballots...

u want to measure surface temperatures, you measure temperatures at the surface. You don't measure a mixture of mid-tropospheric temps and then try to invent a model to make that into surface temps.

The land based recordings are from about 15,000 thermometers and sea buoys.. NOAA attempts to merge these with balloon data, sea captain reports (seriously an 18th century method) and other available assets.. There's very spotty coverage STILL on the entire African continent, tundra country and the extreme lattitudes and the seas.....

And if you remove 90% of those measurements at random, the results won't change. The coverage is massively redundant. You could get accurate global averages with fewer than a hundred data points.

This led to a LOT of hanky panky in how the land based data is massaged and manipulated.

It's not debatable that the adjustments make the warming look smaller. Under your conspiracy theory, the scientists all conspired to fix the data to make the warming look smaller. Why would they do that?

More if ya want it.... LOL....

What you forgot to do is show how any of the adjustments were wrong. All you did was proclaim that since you didn't like the results, you feel they have to be wrong.

On the algorithm point, I recently heard someone say that they could create an algorithm that could prove that Jesus Christ played left field for the Mets.

 

[baileyn45]

Using the term "denier" is a sign of ignorance.

The satellites don't measure surface temperature. They measure a mixture of tropospheric temps. And they use a very complex model with a lot of fudge factors to tease temp out of microwave measurements, so they are correctly regarded as the least reliable data.

It's just common sense that, if you want to measure surface temperatures, you measure temperatures at the surface. You don't measure a mixture of mid-tropospheric temps and then try to invent a model to make that into surface temps.

You trust surface temps more than satellites? i trust neither, Surface temps? You've got to be kidding. Talk about fudge factors, satellites must be pristine in comparison. "Extrapolating," "Interpolating" Homogenizing', I would say that you can't make this shit up, but they have.

My main drive for starting this thread was for some one to have the balls to describe the "surface" network. Someone describe the "network". The last I've seen the US has 1221 stations. evenly spaced that places one, ONE, thermometer in an area from Cleveland, Ohio to Massillon, Ohio (N - S), Cleveland -Port Clinton,(E-W) in a square. The temps easily diverge by 20 deg F. Which is the official temp for the assigned area? As I sit here right now the temp in Cleveland is 71 F. In Massillon it's 65 F, in Port Clinton it's 67 F. What is the official temp of this area? Could it be 71 F, taken at Hopkins Intl Airport, a sea of asphalt, surrounded by another sea of asphalt? Of course it is. Any other reading isn't in a heat island. This isn't science. The Hopkins reading should be discarded as corrupt, instead it is probably the only reading recorded. Scientifically it's sickening.

Globally the majority of surface temps are taken in urban areas, can you say heat bias?

 

[baileyn45]

And if you remove 90% of those measurements at random, the results won't change. The coverage is massively redundant. You could get accurate global averages with fewer than a hundred data points.

That is asinine, Explain this idiocy. 197 million sq/mls less than 100 data points. "Science"? Much, maybe most of which has never, ever been recorded or studied. Brilliant. Idiots.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Global warming isn't about surface temperatures.. The heat is supposed to be fairly uniformly distributed THROUGHOUT the lower tropospehere.. The back rad comes from heating of the lower atmosphere... So that's where you SHOULD look..

Well, no. Most of the heat is in the oceans. But we don't live in the oceans, or in the mid-troposphere. We live on the surface, so it makes sense to measure the surface temperature.

There are too many confounding altitude corrections and effects from the type of surface beneath the land based sensor.. And the network of land based sensors have MASSIVE HOLE in them in Africa and South America and the higher latitudes.. SO bad that it temps "interterpretive modeling"... To extract favorable results. It's SO bad that "reanalysis" is now the operating paradigm which TOSSES the ACTUAL data and "models" the expected results...

And about 60% of the 15,000 thermometers are in the USA or Europe... But they can pick and choose from them to get "favorable results"...

Conspiracy nonsense.

Meanwhile the 10 or 12 sats paint a CONSISTENT grid (about 25 miles sq) around the ENTIRE globe... Data taken twice a day for ENTIRE grid at precise timing..

And then that data is run through a model with multiple fudge factors. And UAH in particularly is a wild outlier on the cold side, disagreeing with all other data sets, including the weather balloons.Yet you still choose to believe in it exclusively.

You can go with NOAA and their "newest" remake of 18th century "ship intake measurements" and the multi--thousand analysts and data cookers revising 80 yr temperatures morning noon or night.. Or go with RSS and UAH and the dozen folks at each who have the algorithms dialed in and don't **** with them but every third year or so...

RSS is on v4, UAH on v6. They both change their algorithms more often than surface temps do. If consistency is your goal, you should be choosing surface temps. However, consistency isn't your goal. Massaging the data to agree with your political beliefs is your goal, so you choose UAH, even if it is the most wild outlier and the most heavily fudged.

You're a complete moron.. The 30s and 40s have been COOLED so that the total ANOMALY looks worse..

Your statement there is the precise opposite of reality. The past has been made warmer, making the warming look smaller.

You're clearly not aware of the basics of the topic being discussed. It looks like you're reciting conspiracy blog fables. So why should anyone pay attention to anything you say?

You can't even SEE El Nino efffects in the GISS/NOAA/Hadley data anymore.. They've completely screwed it... And since they've gone with giving "ship buckets" and balloons and all the OTHER 18th 19th century tech -- and given them EQUAL WEIGHT to the fancy hi tech sea based buoys like idiots would, they've DEPARTED from the gloriously satisfying AGREEMENT that surface based measurements USED TO HAVE with the satellite fleet...

And those things were THERE up to about 1998... Now they are gone.. MASSIVE changes of up to more than 0.5 DegC -- coming and going in about 3 years time -- don't even APPEAR in the official surface record...

You're just rambling there. None of that appears to reflect reality in any way.

It's all designed for idiots like you who shun space science and like those chad ballots...

When a point I often make is how that denialism is just another flavor of extremist right wing kook conspiracy theory, then confirming it like that was probably not your best choice.

Your graph comes from HAD...., have you ever read up on this stuff? Researchers are adjusting readings from canvas buckets, then insulated buckets, then buoys. None of them have global coverage. At the end of the day we're comparing guesses to guesses to more guesses. How this crap is even considered in rational discussions is absurd. How much of the ocean is covered by buoys today? And we're going to compare this to buckets dipped from the occasional ship in a shipping lane 100 years ago? A bucket that may or may not have been insulated, handled by a guy that may or may not have done it, or given a f###.? This is science? I'm to the point now that this is no longer about global warming, it's about the integrity of science.

You can never handle the truth can you?

The earth is 4.5billion year old and we have only 40 years or so actual temperature data from the southern hemisphere.

 

[baileyn45]

Global warming isn't about surface temperatures.. The heat is supposed to be fairly uniformly distributed THROUGHOUT the lower tropospehere.. The back rad comes from heating of the lower atmosphere... So that's where you SHOULD look..

Well, no. Most of the heat is in the oceans. But we don't live in the oceans, or in the mid-troposphere. We live on the surface, so it makes sense to measure the surface temperature.

There are too many confounding altitude corrections and effects from the type of surface beneath the land based sensor.. And the network of land based sensors have MASSIVE HOLE in them in Africa and South America and the higher latitudes.. SO bad that it temps "interterpretive modeling"... To extract favorable results. It's SO bad that "reanalysis" is now the operating paradigm which TOSSES the ACTUAL data and "models" the expected results...

And about 60% of the 15,000 thermometers are in the USA or Europe... But they can pick and choose from them to get "favorable results"...

Conspiracy nonsense.

Meanwhile the 10 or 12 sats paint a CONSISTENT grid (about 25 miles sq) around the ENTIRE globe... Data taken twice a day for ENTIRE grid at precise timing..

And then that data is run through a model with multiple fudge factors. And UAH in particularly is a wild outlier on the cold side, disagreeing with all other data sets, including the weather balloons.Yet you still choose to believe in it exclusively.

You can go with NOAA and their "newest" remake of 18th century "ship intake measurements" and the multi--thousand analysts and data cookers revising 80 yr temperatures morning noon or night.. Or go with RSS and UAH and the dozen folks at each who have the algorithms dialed in and don't **** with them but every third year or so...

RSS is on v4, UAH on v6. They both change their algorithms more often than surface temps do. If consistency is your goal, you should be choosing surface temps. However, consistency isn't your goal. Massaging the data to agree with your political beliefs is your goal, so you choose UAH, even if it is the most wild outlier and the most heavily fudged.

You're a complete moron.. The 30s and 40s have been COOLED so that the total ANOMALY looks worse..

Your statement there is the precise opposite of reality. The past has been made warmer, making the warming look smaller.

You're clearly not aware of the basics of the topic being discussed. It looks like you're reciting conspiracy blog fables. So why should anyone pay attention to anything you say?

You can't even SEE El Nino efffects in the GISS/NOAA/Hadley data anymore.. They've completely screwed it... And since they've gone with giving "ship buckets" and balloons and all the OTHER 18th 19th century tech -- and given them EQUAL WEIGHT to the fancy hi tech sea based buoys like idiots would, they've DEPARTED from the gloriously satisfying AGREEMENT that surface based measurements USED TO HAVE with the satellite fleet...

And those things were THERE up to about 1998... Now they are gone.. MASSIVE changes of up to more than 0.5 DegC -- coming and going in about 3 years time -- don't even APPEAR in the official surface record...

You're just rambling there. None of that appears to reflect reality in any way.

It's all designed for idiots like you who shun space science and like those chad ballots...

When a point I often make is how that denialism is just another flavor of extremist right wing kook conspiracy theory, then confirming it like that was probably not your best choice.

Your graph comes from HAD...., have you ever read up on this stuff? Researchers are adjusting readings from canvas buckets, then insulated buckets, then buoys. None of them have global coverage. At the end of the day we're comparing guesses to guesses to more guesses. How this crap is even considered in rational discussions is absurd. How much of the ocean is covered by buoys today? And we're going to compare this to buckets dipped from the occasional ship in a shipping lane 100 years ago? A bucket that may or may not have been insulated, handled by a guy that may or may not have done it, or given a f###.? This is science? I'm to the point now that this is no longer about global warming, it's about the integrity of science.

You can never handle the truth can you?

The earth is 4.5billion year old and we have only 40 years or so actual temperature data from the southern hemisphere.

40 yrs from the southern hemisphere? You and no one else has decent data from yesterday. Let alone 1910, 1850 or 1992.
Comparing oranges to apples to mushrooms.

 

[Billy_Bob]

And if you remove 90% of those measurements at random, the results won't change. The coverage is massively redundant. You could get accurate global averages with fewer than a hundred data points.

That is asinine, Explain this idiocy. 197 million sq/mls less than 100 data points. "Science"? Much, maybe most of which has never, ever been recorded or studied. Brilliant. Idiots.

The US-CRN is a triple redundant network, covering the lower 48, Alaska and Hawaii, its pristine siting is the best in the world and the system is showing cooling now over 12 years. Its data base is only 40 years long but it only has 157 stations.

Insufficient coverage for a system but it does show the general direction of our climatic systems current phase... Cooling..

 

[mamooth]

You trust surface temps more than satellites? i trust neither, Surface temps? You've got to be kidding. Talk about fudge factors, satellites must be pristine in comparison. "Extrapolating," "Interpolating" Homogenizing', I would say that you can't make this shit up, but they have.

You_ have, certainly. Making shit up seems to all you're capable of. Or, more correctly, parroting the stupidity that your cult made up is all you're capable of.

My main drive for starting this thread was for some one to have the balls to describe the "surface" network. Someone describe the "network". The last I've seen the US has 1221 stations. evenly spaced that places one, ONE, thermometer in an area from Cleveland, Ohio to Massillon, Ohio (N - S), Cleveland -Port Clinton,(E-W) in a square. The temps easily diverge by 20 deg F. Which is the official temp for the assigned area? As I sit here right now the temp in Cleveland is 71 F. In Massillon it's 65 F, in Port Clinton it's 67 F. What is the official temp of this area?

You really need to find out what anomalies are, and why they are used. Then you'd understand why your argument is senseless.

Could it be 71 F, taken at Hopkins Intl Airport, a sea of asphalt, surrounded by another sea of asphalt? Of course it is. Any other reading isn't in a heat island. This isn't science. The Hopkins reading should be discarded as corrupt, instead it is probably the only reading recorded. Scientifically it's sickening.

Your paranoid and delusional cult yammering is more boring than sickening. It's expected from cultists, as they don't know any better.

Globally the majority of surface temps are taken in urban areas, can you say heat bias?

The urban stations show _less_ warming. And thus your conspiracy theory does a face plant.

Have you thought of asking you cult why they've lied to you about these things? It's what someone with a spine would do.

 

[mamooth]

That is asinine, Explain this idiocy. 197 million sq/mls less than 100 data points.

Can you grasp the fact that your inability to grasp a fact has no bearing on the truth of the fact?

Obviously not, otherwise you wouldn't be here repeating your weird cult claims over and over, as if that would make them less stupid.

"Science"? Much, maybe most of which has never, ever been recorded or studied. Brilliant. Idiots.

Don't get angry. Get educated.

Learn about statistics.

Learn about how very smooth temperature anomalies are, even over large distances.

 

[Dick Foster]

There is a huge margin of error in measuring the earth's present average temperature.
But when they attempt to speculate what the earth's average temperature was in the past that margin of error goes up dramatically.
Man made global warming is just a weak hypothesis and we should not be making any economic decisions based upon it.
The corrupt Left Wing politicians use man made global warming FEAR as their political tool to maintain their power and to line their pockets.

It's no different than the witch doctors of the past. A bunch of shitheads that can't do anything useful making work for themselves so they don't starve to death.

 

[baileyn45]

You really need to find out what anomalies are, and why they are used. Then you'd understand why your argument is senseless.

By all means enlighten us. Explain how "anomalies" correct for inadequate data coverage. I'll be waiting. And keep in mind the US has what is probably the most thorough network on the planet.

Your paranoid and delusional cult yammering is more boring than sickening. It's expected from cultists, as they don't know any better.

There's nothing paranoid nor delusional about pointing out data that can't support given conclusions.

The urban stations show _less_ warming. And thus your conspiracy theory does a face plant.

Have you thought of asking you cult why they've lied to you about these things? It's what someone with a spine would do.

Urban stations show less warming? Where do you come up with stuff? It's the main reason the number of stations used in the US were whittled down to 1200.

None of this addresses the simple fact that the surface station network doesn't have anywhere near the geographic coverage to give an average global temp. I just can't understand how anyone could accept that it does. Look up for yourself the coverage in Siberia, the antarctic, arctic Canada or Africa. It's a joke.

 

[baileyn45]

I don't care about your favorite word "anomalies". Using one temp reading as the stand in for a couple of thousand square miles sucks. You can put all the statistical analyses you want to it, it still amounts to a guess. Look at Antarctica, there are maybe 100 stations, it's an area 2/3 larger than the US. Over 5,000,000 sq miles 100 readings, and most of those are on the coasts. 1 station for every 50,000 sq mls. And they're not even remotely evenly spaced. This is going to give us the average temp over the course of a month or a year, to within a tenth of a degree C? It's absurd.

 

[SSDD]

I don't care about your favorite word "anomalies". Using one temp reading as the stand in for a couple of thousand square miles sucks. You can put all the statistical analyses you want to it, it still amounts to a guess. Look at Antarctica, there are maybe 100 stations, it's an area 2/3 larger than the US. Over 5,000,000 sq miles 100 readings, and most of those are on the coasts. 1 station for every 50,000 sq mls. And they're not even remotely evenly spaced. This is going to give us the average temp over the course of a month or a year, to within a tenth of a degree C? It's absurd.

They show temperature in terms of anomaly in order to create a sense of urgency...to create the illusion of crisis...to fool useful idiots.

Here is a typical temperature graph shown in terms of anomaly:

Now here is the same data shown in terms of actual temperature:

It would be pretty hard to convince anyone..even useful idiots of impending climate catastrophe if they showed the actual temperature rather than the false scales associated with showing temperatures in terms of anomoly.

 

[mamooth]

Your graph comes from HAD...., have you ever read up on this stuff?

Yes. Which is why I'm asking you why you're pushing such a conspiracy theory.

The adjustments to past ocean temperatures have made the past look much warmer, and thus made the current warming look much smaller. That's not debatable.

Yet here you are, babbling about some conspiracy to make the warming look bigger.

The facts flatly contradict your kook conspiracy theory. So why do you continue to push it? Is it that you don't know the facts, or is it that you're just afraid to go against cult dogma? Given how violent and unstable your cult is, I can understand that.

 

[mamooth]

By all means enlighten us. Explain how "anomalies" correct for inadequate data coverage. I'll be waiting. And keep in mind the US has what is probably the most thorough network on the planet.

Anomalies vary smoothly and predictably over many hundreds of miles, so interpolation gives nearly perfect results.

Urban stations show less warming?

Yes. This is basic stuff, and you fail at it. Get some info that doesn't come from your cult.

Error - Cookies Turned Off

Mr. Watts from WUWT was heartily embarrassed when he tried to push that particular scam. Turns out his "bad" stations showed less warming than the pristine stations.

https://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf

You mean WUWT didn't pass that info on to you? No? They deliberately decided to keep you ignorant? Interesting.

Where do you come up with stuff? It's the main reason the number of stations used in the US were whittled down to 1200.

Since the data contradicts that conspiracy theory, it faceplants as well.

None of this addresses the simple fact that the surface station network doesn't have anywhere near the geographic coverage to give an average global temp. I just can't understand how anyone could accept that it does. Look up for yourself the coverage in Siberia, the antarctic, arctic Canada or Africa. It's a joke.

You can remove 90% of that network at random and the results won't change, your claim of "not enough coverage" is obviously wrong. You feeling strongly otherwise doesn't affect what the data says.

 

[mamooth]

I don't care about your favorite word "anomalies".

Of course you don't. It destroys you conspiracy theory, forcing you to ignore it. Needless to say, real scientists don't just ignore all the data they don't like. Psuedoscientists do.

Using one temp reading as the stand in for a couple of thousand square miles sucks. You can put all the statistical analyses you want to it, it still amounts to a guess. Look at Antarctica, there are maybe 100 stations, it's an area 2/3 larger than the US. Over 5,000,000 sq miles 100 readings, and most of those are on the coasts. 1 station for every 50,000 sq mls. And they're not even remotely evenly spaced. This is going to give us the average temp over the course of a month or a year, to within a tenth of a degree C? It's absurd.

Which is why the polar regions are left out of the averages that JMA and HADCRUT use. NOAA uses some, while NASA GISS includes the poles. They all come up with the nearly same thing. GISS is a bit higher, because the poles are warming more strongly. However, the fact that they all agree so closely should tell you that nobody is fudging anything or using some terribly incorrect method.

So, for your conspiracy theory to have any merit, you'd have to demonstrate that there are huge temperature anomaly swings in the areas with poor coverage. As there is no evidence for such things, and no proposed physical mechanism for such things, it will be a difficult task for you to demonstrate such a thing exists.