How warm was our planet in July?

[ScienceRocks]

Take you best guess where the giss and noaa will place July 2015. My guess is the land will force things to be "cooler",,,but I think the datasets will go opposite of June as Antarctica was warmer rather then cooler.

My guess is
Noaa 3rd hottest
Giss 2nd hottest

We will probably heat back up and be setting number ones again later this year!!!

We will come back to this thread in mid August to see how close we were!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hillary's answer: What difference does it make?

You guys alter the data to fit your stupid theory.

90% of the "warming" gets eaten by the oceans

 

[ScienceRocks]

Hillary's answer: What difference does it make?

You guys alter the data to fit your stupid theory.

90% of the "warming" gets eaten by the oceans

Honestly, you're a very dim person that thinks he's better then phd's in climate...hahaha And yes, most of the energy goes into the ocean. No shit Sherlock!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

By saying the oceans ate your warming, you losers quadrupled down on a losing bet.

You'll be on the curbside next to Ghosterbusters and the Piltdown Man before too long

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It was so warm, we must ruin our economy in a failed attempt to cool it.

 

[Stephanie]

it's hotter than hell where I am. petty freaking normal for this time of year. sheeesh

 

[ScienceRocks]

It was so warm, we must ruin our economy in a failed attempt to cool it.

Maybe we should geo-engineer with adding a few hundred billions tons of dust, reflective shit into the stratosphere.

 

[Stephanie]

It was so warm, we must ruin our economy in a failed attempt to cool it.

Maybe we should geo-engineer with adding a few hundred billions tons of dust, reflective shit into the stratosphere.

 

[ScienceRocks]

By saying the oceans ate your warming, you losers quadrupled down on a losing bet.

You'll be on the curbside next to Ghosterbusters and the Piltdown Man before too long

The new data set is a better estimation of the polar "hole" in our data that we know that warmed faster. The new data set also warms the late 19th into the mid 20th century enough to cut a tenth of a degree Celsius off our estimated warming. Why would they do this if they were attempting to highlight global warming?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Is anyone going to give a guess to how warm july was?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

By saying the oceans ate your warming, you losers quadrupled down on a losing bet.

You'll be on the curbside next to Ghosterbusters and the Piltdown Man before too long

The new data set is a better estimation of the polar "hole" in our data that we know that warmed faster. The new data set also warms the late 19th into the mid 20th century enough to cut a tenth of a degree Celsius off our estimated warming. Why would they do this if they were attempting to highlight global warming?

Yeah, like I said, alter the data to fit your failed theory

The arrogance to state that we accurately measure ocean temperatures to a tenth of a degree 100 years ago is truly astounding

 

[ScienceRocks]

By saying the oceans ate your warming, you losers quadrupled down on a losing bet.

You'll be on the curbside next to Ghosterbusters and the Piltdown Man before too long

The new data set is a better estimation of the polar "hole" in our data that we know that warmed faster. The new data set also warms the late 19th into the mid 20th century enough to cut a tenth of a degree Celsius off our estimated warming. Why would they do this if they were attempting to highlight global warming?

Yeah, like I said, alter the data to fit your failed theory

How is this altering it? We know for a fact that the earlier estimates were too low for the arctic.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

By saying the oceans ate your warming, you losers quadrupled down on a losing bet.

You'll be on the curbside next to Ghosterbusters and the Piltdown Man before too long

The new data set is a better estimation of the polar "hole" in our data that we know that warmed faster. The new data set also warms the late 19th into the mid 20th century enough to cut a tenth of a degree Celsius off our estimated warming. Why would they do this if they were attempting to highlight global warming?

Yeah, like I said, alter the data to fit your failed theory

How is this altering it? We know for a fact that the earlier estimates were too low for the arctic.

AGWCult moved from NYSE to the pink sheets. The numbers are whatever you tell us they are.

"We're ready to believe you!" AGWCult faithful to the IPCC

 

[CrusaderFrank]

By saying the oceans ate your warming, you losers quadrupled down on a losing bet.

You'll be on the curbside next to Ghosterbusters and the Piltdown Man before too long

The new data set is a better estimation of the polar "hole" in our data that we know that warmed faster. The new data set also warms the late 19th into the mid 20th century enough to cut a tenth of a degree Celsius off our estimated warming. Why would they do this if they were attempting to highlight global warming?

Yeah, like I said, alter the data to fit your failed theory

How is this altering it? We know for a fact that the earlier estimates were too low for the arctic.

Lol...did you say you know for a fact? Lol

 

[ScienceRocks]

By saying the oceans ate your warming, you losers quadrupled down on a losing bet.

You'll be on the curbside next to Ghosterbusters and the Piltdown Man before too long

The new data set is a better estimation of the polar "hole" in our data that we know that warmed faster. The new data set also warms the late 19th into the mid 20th century enough to cut a tenth of a degree Celsius off our estimated warming. Why would they do this if they were attempting to highlight global warming?

Yeah, like I said, alter the data to fit your failed theory

How is this altering it? We know for a fact that the earlier estimates were too low for the arctic.

Lol...did you say you know for a fact? Lol

Based on the observation we do have for that part of the world.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It was so warm, we must ruin our economy in a failed attempt to cool it.

Maybe we should geo-engineer with adding a few hundred billions tons of dust, reflective shit into the stratosphere.

Yeah, do something dumber than you're already doing. No thanks.
If the greens were honestly interested in reducing CO2, without damaging our economy, they'd support a massive program of new nuke plants.

 

[ScienceRocks]

It was so warm, we must ruin our economy in a failed attempt to cool it.

Maybe we should geo-engineer with adding a few hundred billions tons of dust, reflective shit into the stratosphere.

Yeah, do something dumber than you're already doing. No thanks.
If the greens were honestly interested in reducing CO2, without damaging our economy, they'd support a massive program of new nuke plants.

I support nuclear Build about 50 of them!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It was so warm, we must ruin our economy in a failed attempt to cool it.

Maybe we should geo-engineer with adding a few hundred billions tons of dust, reflective shit into the stratosphere.

Yeah, do something dumber than you're already doing. No thanks.
If the greens were honestly interested in reducing CO2, without damaging our economy, they'd support a massive program of new nuke plants.

I support nuclear Build about 50 of them!

Get the rest of the idiot greens to go along and you might accomplish something.

 

[Shrimpbox]

What are we supposed to think. Lobster catch off New England is down because water is so cold?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What are we supposed to think. Lobster catch off New England is down because water is so cold?

Overfishing