PDA

View Full Version : Environment Flashback...Dems say little or no snow is PROOF of AGW..video


petegz28
02-12-2010, 12:16 PM
<embed src="http://blip.tv/play/hJNRgcS7EQI%2Em4v" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="480" height="364" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed>


LMAO.....suddenly the massive snow is proof of AGW as well.

patteeu
02-12-2010, 12:48 PM
When the massive snow eventually melts, that too will be proof of AGW!

petegz28
02-12-2010, 12:49 PM
When the massive snow eventually melts, that too will be proof of AGW!

I think we should just build a giant shade to block out the sun. This way the ski resort and snowmobile people won't complain.

irishjayhawk
02-12-2010, 01:00 PM
It's weird, it's like pete didn't watch cdcox's Bill Nye video which explains a lot of these comments.

Why this needed a new thread, I'll never know.

Royal Fanatic
02-12-2010, 01:04 PM
It's weird, it's like pete didn't watch cdcox's Bill Nye video which explains a lot of these comments.

Why this needed a new thread, I'll never know.
The Bill Nye video doesn't explain shit. It's just a liberal scientist spouting more bullshit propaganda. When you start with a predetermined conclusion and then say that no matter happens it supports your conclusion, it's not science.

ChiTown
02-12-2010, 02:09 PM
When you start with a predetermined conclusion and then say that no matter happens it supports your conclusion, it's not science.

You're right, it's not science, it's a political handjob - and it's bullshit.

Iowanian
02-12-2010, 02:21 PM
THERE BE NO SNOW IN CANADA!!! GLOBAL WAAAAAAAAARMING!!!!


ITS SNOWING IN FLORIDA.....SNOWBALL WARMING!!!

orange
07-16-2010, 01:04 AM
You know, I MISS these CP weather reports. I wonder why they stopped.

Maybe you're all just too hot to do anything.


Jan.-June warmest first half of year on record
2010 tops 1998 temps; question now is whether 12 months will break 2005 record for warmest year


updated 7/15/2010 5:53:10 PM ET
Share Print Font: +-Global land and ocean surface temperatures in the first half of 2010 were the warmest January-June on record, the federal climate service reported Thursday.

January-June temperatures averaged 57.5 degrees Fahrenheit — 1.22 degrees F above the 20th Century average, according to the National Climatic Data Center. Its records go back to 1880.

That broke the previous record of 1.19 degrees F above average set in 1998.

In addition, last month was the warmest June on record at 61.1 degrees F — 1.22 degrees F above the 20th Century average.

2010 has also surpassed 1998 for the most "warmest months" in any calendar year, the center stated.

"Each of the 10 warmest average global temperatures recorded since 1880 have occurred in the last fifteen years," it added. "The warmest year-to-date on record, through June, was 1998, and 2010 is warmer so far."

The warmest year on record is 2005, but that record could fall as well.

The center also reported opposite ice developments on opposite sides of the globe:

•Arctic sea ice covered an average of 4.2 million square miles during June — "10.6 percent below the 1979-2000 average extent and the lowest June extent since records began in 1979. This was also the 19th consecutive June with below-average Arctic sea ice extent."

•"Antarctic sea ice extent in June was above average, 8.3 percent above the 1979-2000 average — resulting in the largest June extent on record."

The center, which calls itself "the largest active archive of weather data," gets monthly updates from national weather bureaus around the world.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38263788/ns/us_news-environmenthttp://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/100715_Temps.grid-6x2.JPG

Taco John
07-16-2010, 02:35 AM
I don't have an issue with Global Warming. It's the cocamamie solutions to "solving" it that I have a problem with. It's not like most of the proponents of the science are cutting back their personal usage at all. They're just looking down their noses at people who scoff at their devotion to the theory, and calling it good.

petegz28
07-16-2010, 08:47 AM
You know, I MISS these CP weather reports. I wonder why they stopped.

Maybe you're all just too hot to do anything.


Jan.-June warmest first half of year on record
2010 tops 1998 temps; question now is whether 12 months will break 2005 record for warmest year


updated 7/15/2010 5:53:10 PM ET
Share Print Font: +-Global land and ocean surface temperatures in the first half of 2010 were the warmest January-June on record, the federal climate service reported Thursday.

January-June temperatures averaged 57.5 degrees Fahrenheit — 1.22 degrees F above the 20th Century average, according to the National Climatic Data Center. Its records go back to 1880.

That broke the previous record of 1.19 degrees F above average set in 1998.

In addition, last month was the warmest June on record at 61.1 degrees F — 1.22 degrees F above the 20th Century average.

2010 has also surpassed 1998 for the most "warmest months" in any calendar year, the center stated.

"Each of the 10 warmest average global temperatures recorded since 1880 have occurred in the last fifteen years," it added. "The warmest year-to-date on record, through June, was 1998, and 2010 is warmer so far."

The warmest year on record is 2005, but that record could fall as well.

The center also reported opposite ice developments on opposite sides of the globe:

•Arctic sea ice covered an average of 4.2 million square miles during June — "10.6 percent below the 1979-2000 average extent and the lowest June extent since records began in 1979. This was also the 19th consecutive June with below-average Arctic sea ice extent."

•"Antarctic sea ice extent in June was above average, 8.3 percent above the 1979-2000 average — resulting in the largest June extent on record."

The center, which calls itself "the largest active archive of weather data," gets monthly updates from national weather bureaus around the world.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38263788/ns/us_news-environmenthttp://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/100715_Temps.grid-6x2.JPG

Oh noes!!! It's hot in June!!!!

petegz28
07-16-2010, 08:50 AM
So first we get little snow and it's the fault of GW.
Then we get a mild summer and it's the fault of GW.
Then we get a ton of snow and it's the fault of GW.
Now we are getting a hot summer and it's the fault of GW.


LMAO

http://carnalreason.org/images/feb08/globaltemp.jpg

petegz28
07-16-2010, 09:07 AM
The world is hotter than ever.
March, April, May and June set records, making 2010 the warmest year worldwide since record-keeping began in 1880, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says.

"It's part of an overall trend," says Jay Lawrimore, climate analysis chief at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center. "Global temperatures ... have been rising for the last 100-plus years. Much of the increase is due to increases in greenhouse gases."

There were exceptions: June was cooler than average across Scandinavia, southeastern China, and the northwestern USA, according to NOAA's report.

If nothing changes, Lawrimore predicts:

•Flooding rains like those in Nashville in May will be more common.

"The atmosphere is able to hold more water as it warms, and greater water content leads to greater downpours," he says.


PRICE HIKE: Hot weather boosts natural gas demand
MELTDOWN: Glacier National Park faces rising heat


• Heavy snow, like the record snows that crippled Baltimore and Washington last winter, is likely to increase because storms are moving north. Also, the Great Lakes aren't freezing as early or as much. "As cold outbreaks occur, cold air goes over the Great Lakes, picks up moisture and dumps on the Northeast," he says.

• Droughts are likely to be more severe and heat waves more frequent.

• More arctic ice will disappear, speeding up warming, as the Arctic Ocean warms "more than would happen if the sea ice were in place," he says. Arctic sea ice was at a record low in June.

Marc Morano, a global-warming skeptic who edits the Climate Depot website, says the government "is playing the climate fear card by hyping predictions and cherry-picking data."

Joe D'Aleo, a meteorologist who co-founded The Weather Channel, disagrees, too. He says oceans are entering a cooling cycle that will lower temperatures.

He says too many of the weather stations NOAA uses are in warmer urban areas.

"The only reliable data set right now is satellite," D'Aleo says.

He says NASA satellite data shows the average temperature in June was 0.43 degrees higher than normal. NOAA says it was 1.22 degrees higher.

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/2010-07-15-heat-record_N.htm

Saul Good
07-16-2010, 09:48 AM
Can I help solve this by paying higher taxes? I sure hope so.

FD
07-16-2010, 10:10 AM
So first we get little snow and it's the fault of GW.
Then we get a mild summer and it's the fault of GW.
Then we get a ton of snow and it's the fault of GW.
Now we are getting a hot summer and it's the fault of GW.


LMAO

http://carnalreason.org/images/feb08/globaltemp.jpg

Where is this from?

petegz28
07-16-2010, 10:14 AM
Where is this from?

I made it meself!!!!

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://carnalreason.org/images/feb08/globaltemp.jpg&imgrefurl=http://carnalreason.org/2008/02/10/applied-climate-change-science/&h=462&w=600&sz=33&tbnid=MyYvvFFmtLb4SM:&tbnh=104&tbnw=135&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dglobal%2Btemperature%2Bgraph&hl=en&usg=__MZBfA8UGWq9qyv4UTOc7NDFJNts=&sa=X&ei=-nZATKL3N8_9nQf7msn5Dw&ved=0CDEQ9QEwBQ

FD
07-16-2010, 10:20 AM
I made it meself!!!!

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://carnalreason.org/images/feb08/globaltemp.jpg&imgrefurl=http://carnalreason.org/2008/02/10/applied-climate-change-science/&h=462&w=600&sz=33&tbnid=MyYvvFFmtLb4SM:&tbnh=104&tbnw=135&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dglobal%2Btemperature%2Bgraph&hl=en&usg=__MZBfA8UGWq9qyv4UTOc7NDFJNts=&sa=X&ei=-nZATKL3N8_9nQf7msn5Dw&ved=0CDEQ9QEwBQ

Ah, so its just BS. Just making sure. Here's a real chart:

http://img.skitch.com/20100708-jkme98iadimi2e8k561t76a9ud.png

The Mad Crapper
07-16-2010, 10:21 AM
Ah, so its just BS. Just making sure. Here's a real chart:

http://img.skitch-jkme98iadimi2e8k561t76a9ud.png

ROFL

petegz28
07-16-2010, 10:23 AM
Ah, so its just BS. Just making sure. Here's a real chart:

http://img.skitch.com/20100708-jkme98iadimi2e8k561t76a9ud.png

Yeah, it's BS. That's why the chart I posted goes back 425,000 years and yours goes back 130. :rolleyes:

Presenting the big picture in climate change debates has never been something GW'ers want to do.

And my BS chart also shows what your chart shows. Only my BS chart shows what happened BEFORE your BS chart.

The Mad Crapper
07-16-2010, 10:24 AM
Al Gore is a fraud and anybody still using his pseudo science data is an imbecile.

http://image.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/gore-stick.jpg

petegz28
07-16-2010, 10:25 AM
425,000 years of data vs. 130. You decide which is more complete.

petegz28
07-16-2010, 10:28 AM
Here is another "BS chart"...

http://www.longrangeweather.com/images/GTEMPS.gif

The Mad Crapper
07-16-2010, 10:32 AM
425,000 years of data vs. 130. You decide which is more complete.

How did all that ice melt 10,000 years ago with no combustible engines?

:drool:

FD
07-16-2010, 10:33 AM
425,000 years of data vs. 130. You decide which is more complete.

Where does your "data" come from though?

petegz28
07-16-2010, 10:35 AM
Where does your "data" come from though?

I gave you the link. Feel free to keep ignoring it and cherry picking 130 years of data to make your case.

Just a word of advice though, the planet is older than 130 years.

petegz28
07-16-2010, 10:40 AM
The `Hockey Stick' - True or False?

To disprove the `Hockey Stick', it is sufficient to merely demonstrate conclusively the existence of the Medieval Warm Period and/or the Little Ice Age in proxy and/or historical evidence from around the world. According to the `falsifiability' principle of science, substantial physical evidence that contradicts a theory is sufficient to `falsify' that theory. To that end, `exhibits' of physical evidence are presented below to prove that not only is the `Hockey Stick' false, but that the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age were not only very real - but also global in extent.



:hmmm:

FD
07-16-2010, 10:41 AM
I gave you the link. Feel free to keep ignoring it and cherry picking 130 years of data to make your case.

Just a word of advice though, the planet is older than 130 years.

The link doesn't have any citation though, it just posts the chart. What is the source material, and why doesn't it have lines representing confidence intervals?

notorious
07-16-2010, 10:43 AM
Al Gore has spouted off so many "out of his ass" facts that I have a hard time believing anything that comes out of his mouth.

FD
07-16-2010, 10:44 AM
Here is another "BS chart"...


Yes, that is also a BS chart. It doesn't even have a scale!

petegz28
07-16-2010, 10:44 AM
http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey2.gif

Dr Michael Mann of the Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts was the primary author of the GRL paper, and in one scientific coup overturned the whole of climate history [16].

Using tree rings as a basis for assessing past temperature changes back to the year 1,000 AD, supplemented by other proxies from more recent centuries, Mann completely redrew the history, turning the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age into non-events, consigned to a kind of Orwellian `memory hole' [22]. Fig.4 shows Mann's revision of the climatic history of the last millennium.

From the diagram, the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age have disappeared, to be replaced by a largely benign and slightly cooling linear trend in climate - until 1900 AD.

At that point, Mann completed the coup and crudely grafted the surface temperature record of the 20th century (shown in red and itself largely the product of urban heat islands) onto the pre-1900 tree ring record. The effect was visually dramatic as the 20th century was portrayed as a climate rocketing out of control. The red line extends all the way to 1998 (Mann's `warmest year of the millennium'), a year warmed by the big El Nińo of that year. It should be noted that the surface record is completely at variance with the satellite temperature record [20]. Had the latter been used to represent the last 20 years, the effect would have been to make the 20th century much less significant when compared with earlier centuries.

As a piece of science and statistics it was seriously flawed as two data series representing such different variables as temperature and tree rings simply cannot be credibly grafted together into a single series.

In every other science when such a drastic revision of previously accepted knowledge is promulgated, there is considerable debate and initial scepticism, the new theory facing a gauntlet of criticism and intense review. Only if a new idea survives that process does it become broadly accepted by the scientific peer group and the public at large.

This never happened with Mann's `Hockey Stick'. The coup was total, bloodless, and swift as Mann's paper was greeted with a chorus of uncritical approval from the greenhouse industry. Within the space of only 12 months, the theory had become entrenched as a new orthodoxy.

The ultimate consummation of the new theory came with the release of the draft of the Third Assessment Report (TAR-2000) [11] of the IPCC. Overturning its own previous view in the 1995 report, the IPCC presented the `Hockey Stick' as the new orthodoxy with hardly an apology or explanation for the abrupt U-turn since its 1995 report. They could not even offer any scientific justification for their new line.

Within months of the IPCC draft release, the long-awaited draft U.S. `National Assessment' Overview document featured the `Hockey Stick' as the first of many climatic graphs and charts in its report, affirming the crucial importance placed in it by the authors and by the industry at large. This is not an esoteric theory about the distant past, marginal to the global warming debate, but rather is a core foundation upon which a new publicity offensive on global warming is being mounted.

Two issues are raised by Mann's `Hockey Stick'.

1) Why did the climate community fail to critically review the validity of the new theory,
indeed to uncritically embrace it in its entirety?

2) Is any of it true? Or is it a means of disposing of the inconvenient Medieval Warm Period
and Little Ice Age, and thus avoid the problem of the role of the sun in climate history?

http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

petegz28
07-16-2010, 10:45 AM
Yes, that is also a BS chart. It doesn't even have a scale!

Like I saidm you can keep ignoring the facts and play this BS of cherry picking 130 years of data if you wish. The fool you make out is only yourself in this case.

FD
07-16-2010, 10:49 AM
Like I saidm you can keep ignoring the facts and play this BS of cherry picking 130 years of data if you wish. The fool you make out is only yourself in this case.

First of all, nobody is talking about the hockey stick graph in this thread. Secondly, you still havent provided the "data" that supports your "chart."

petegz28
07-16-2010, 10:51 AM
The evidence from the `exhibits' is overwhelming. From all corners of the world, the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age clearly shows up in a variety of proxy indicators, proxies more representative of temperature than the inadequate tree rings used by Michael Mann.

What is disquieting about the `Hockey Stick' is not Mann's presentation of it originally. As with any paper, it would sink into oblivion if found to be flawed in any way. Rather it was the reaction of the greenhouse industry to it - the chorus of approval, the complete lack of critical evaluation of the theory, the blind acceptance of evidence which was so flimsy. The industry embraced the theory for one reason and one reason only - it told them exactly what they wanted to hear.

Proponents of the `Hockey Stick' should recall George Orwell's `Nineteen Eighty-Four', a black SF drama in which his fictional totalitarian regime used `memory holes' to re-invent past history [22]. In this age of instant communication, there is no `memory hole' big enough to overturn the historical truth about the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age.

http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

The Mad Crapper
07-16-2010, 10:55 AM
The Bering strait was frozen solid up until about 130 years ago. LMAO

petegz28
07-16-2010, 10:55 AM
First of all, nobody is talking about the hockey stick graph in this thread. Secondly, you still havent provided the "data" that supports your "chart."

Um, yes, in essence you are. I have given you links. If you don't like them, too bad. That's your problem. The reality is people, and I include you in this for this thread, are choosing to cherry pick 130 yars of data to make ignorant and uninformed claims that we are hotter than ever before!!!

But yet the data YOU and others want to provide only goes back to 1880. Agai, the world is slightly older than 130 years. So if your argument is to claim we are warmer now than we have been over the last 130 years, while debateable, your argument takes on a little more credibility.

But if you are going to sit there and throw out charts using a 130 years of data to prove the world is hotter than it ever has been then I would have to say your head is being slammed into a wall if you believe such.

Hydrae
07-16-2010, 11:06 AM
Ah, so its just BS. Just making sure. Here's a real chart:

http://img.skitch.com/20100708-jkme98iadimi2e8k561t76a9ud.png

Just curious since you are trying to bust Pete's chops over his graphs, This one mentions being against a mean temperature. What time period is that mean temperature over? At least Pete's graph states that it is simply temperatures in general, not in comparision to some average that is not stated.

petegz28
07-16-2010, 11:08 AM
First of all, nobody is talking about the hockey stick graph in this thread. Secondly, you still havent provided the "data" that supports your "chart."

I found your chart on a page that indeed presents the hockey stick chart. Just FYI.

petegz28
07-16-2010, 11:15 AM
Here are the facts and I will be done with this because it is just too flustrating to argue with people so myopic on the subject.

1. The planet has been warmer than it is now. That's a fact.
2. The hockey stick charts and its variations try to co-mingle data in a non-scientific way.
3. Most of the charts starting in 1880 show a warming trend increase which is based on the use of themometers and not ice cores, corals, etc, etc.

And finally....

No matter what the climate or weather conditions, no snow, tons of snow, no rain, tons of rain, hot summer, cool summer, warm winter, cold winter......just blame it on GW and your SUV.

tiptap
07-16-2010, 11:28 AM
So by your 400,000 year old graph we should be heading for a colder climate.

This is the background understanding for most climatologists. We are in a inter glacial period of the present Ice Age. The Pleistocene era represents this warming trend in the midst of an Ice Age. The present interglacial period is running twice as long as the average length of these interglacial periods.

Your graph fails to correctly indicate the temperature rise of the last 150 years. In a sense the compression of that century of time is sqashed up against the far right of your graph so it is hidden by the border. Try changing scale of the last 10,000 years along the x axis by making that section as long as your graph of the 400,000 years. Try two graphs.

Do that for me and then we can go forward with your presentation.

petegz28
07-16-2010, 11:32 AM
So by your 400,000 year old graph we should be heading for a colder climate.

This is the background understanding for most climatologists. We are in a inter glacial period of the present Ice Age. The Pleistocene era represents this warming trend in the midst of an Ice Age. The present interglacial period is running twice as long as the average length of these interglacial periods.

Your graph fails to correctly indicate the temperature rise of the last 150 years. In a sense the compression of that century of time is sqashed up against the far left of your graph so it is hidden by the border. Try changing scale of the last 10,000 years along the x axis by making that section as long as your graph of the 400,000 years. Try two graphs.

Do that for me and then we can go forward with your presentation.

Um, it's not my graph to change, sorry to disappoint. I guess the sarcasm of "I made it meself" was lost on a few of you?

petegz28
07-16-2010, 11:38 AM
Found this site. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/

I like the way the guy presents his argument. It was almost funny yet informative.

FD
07-16-2010, 11:39 AM
Here are the facts and I will be done with this because it is just too flustrating to argue with people so myopic on the subject.

1. The planet has been warmer than it is now. That's a fact.
2. The hockey stick charts and its variations try to co-mingle data in a non-scientific way.
3. Most of the charts starting in 1880 show a warming trend increase which is based on the use of themometers and not ice cores, corals, etc, etc.

And finally....

No matter what the climate or weather conditions, no snow, tons of snow, no rain, tons of rain, hot summer, cool summer, warm winter, cold winter......just blame it on GW and your SUV.

I didn't post the hockey stick chart because I feel it has been discredited. This does not mean that every chart showing warming has also been discredited, its a ridiculous strawman to start posting about the hockey stick chart any time someone posts a chart showing the rise in temperatures. The chart I did post is clear hard evidence that temperatures are rapidly rising. There is no doubt about this.

You posted a chart which appears to have no data backing it and more importantly no confidence intervervals, or at least you refuse to provide the source. There is nothing scientific about this, its just a pretty picture. A picture of what you wish to be true. Since you dont have a source (just a link to another website without a source) you should probably put a footnote on the chart that says "This is nothing more than a pretty picture that I really wish was true."

I agree that no temporary weather patterns can be cited as evidence for or against climate change, thats just lazy people in the media needing to write stories.

petegz28
07-16-2010, 11:41 AM
I didn't post the hockey stick chart because I feel it has been discredited. This does not mean that every chart showing warming has also been discredited, its a ridiculous strawman to start posting about the hockey stick chart any time someone posts a chart showing the rise in temperatures. The chart I did post is clear hard evidence that temperatures are rapidly rising. There is no doubt about this.

You posted a chart which appears to have no data backing it up, or at least you refuse to provide the source. There is nothing scientific about this, its just a pretty little picture. A picture of what you wish to be true. Since you dont have a source (just a link to another website without a source) you should probably put a footnote on the chart that says "This is nothing more than a pretty picture that I really wish was true."

I agree that no temporary weather patterns can be cited as evidence for or against climate change, thats just lazy people in the media needing to write stories.


I never said we weren't warming, did I? I said to look at things in context of where we are compared to where we have been. You can keep slamming all the charts I have posted all you want. The fact is they present the facts.

FD
07-16-2010, 11:44 AM
I never said we weren't warming, did I? I said to look at things in context of where we are compared to where we have been. You can keep slamming all the charts I have posted all you want. The fact is they present the facts.

They present a "fact". Not the facts.

petegz28
07-16-2010, 11:46 AM
They present a "fact". Not the facts.

Ok, well THE FACT they present is 3-fold...

1. We have been warmer than we are now. This is no secret.
2. The Hocket Stick chart which so many GW proponents have clinged too is a misleading and in some cases very un-scientific chart
3. You can't correctly state the condition of the planet's climate in context based on 130 years of data

orange
07-16-2010, 11:55 AM
I gave you the link. Feel free to keep ignoring it and cherry picking 130 years of data to make your case.


Another link YOU DIDN'T READ.


Ok, I have to be honest here. He didn’t really show that graph. I just wanted to put it out there, while it’s still legal.

http://carnalreason.org/2008/02/10/applied-climate-change-science/

ROFLROFLROFL

I made it meself!!!!


You might as well have!!!

petegz28
07-16-2010, 12:03 PM
Another link YOU DIDN'T READ.


Ok, I have to be honest here. He didn’t really show that graph. I just wanted to put it out there, while it’s still legal.

http://carnalreason.org/2008/02/10/applied-climate-change-science/

ROFLROFLROFL



You might as well have!!!

Who isn't being honest, orange? Nice parse there to try and make things out to say something I didn't say. I posted the chart. Are you calling BS on the chart? Or is this just another one of your typical, self-congratulatory tactics where you parse a couple words and try to spin shit?

orange
07-16-2010, 12:04 PM
Just curious since you are trying to bust Pete's chops over his graphs, This one mentions being against a mean temperature. What time period is that mean temperature over? At least Pete's graph states that it is simply temperatures in general, not in comparision to some average that is not stated.

Global Surface Temperature Anomalies
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Climatic Data Center

Annual Global Temperature Anomalies Background - FAQ
Global Mean Temperature Estimates
Gridded Dataset
The Global Anomalies and Index Data
Additional Websites
References


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background Information - FAQ
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.

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.

What datasets are used in calculating the average global temperature anomaly?

Land surface temperatures are available from the Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN). Sea surface temperatures are determined using the extended reconstructed sea surface temperature (ERSST) analysis. ERSST uses the most recently available International Comprehensive Ocean-Atmosphere Data Set (ICOADS) and statistical methods that allow stable reconstruction using sparse data. The monthly analysis begins January 1854, but due to very sparse data, no global averages are computed before 1880. With more observations after 1880, the signal is stronger and more consistent over time.

What version of the ERSST analysis is currently being used?

ERSST version 3b is currently used. ERSST version 3 improved upon version 2 in several ways: first, by changing the low-frequency tuning, effectively increasing the sensitivity to data prior to 1930; by internally handling sea ice calculations to increase the timeliness of the dataset; and by using satellite observations to increase data where in-situ measurements are sparse (Smith et al., 2008). In version 3b, the satellite observations were removed from the product because they were found to have introduced a bias that caused problems for many of our users. The bias was strongest in the middle and high latitude Southern Hemisphere where in-situ (ship and buoy) observations are sparse. More detailed information about the switch to version 3b.

When was the use of the ERSST version 3b implemented?

The transition to the new ERSST version (3b) occurred in November 2008. The Climate Monitoring Branch began using the updated merged land-ocean dataset for the July 2009 State of the Climate Report. The changes were previewed in the May and June 2009 State of the Climate reports to caution users.

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.

How is the average global temperature anomaly time-series calculated?

The global time series is produced from the Smith and Reynolds blended land and ocean data set (Smith and Reynolds, 2005). This data set consists of monthly average temperature anomalies on a 5° x 5° grid across land and ocean surfaces. These grid boxes are then averaged to provide an average global temperature anomaly. An area-weighted scheme is used to reflect the reality that the boxes are smaller near the poles and larger near the equator. Global-average anomalies are calculated on a monthly and annual time scale. Average temperature anomalies are also available for land and ocean surfaces separately, and the Northern and Southern Hemispheres separately. The global and hemispheric anomalies are provided with respect to the period 1901-2000, the 20th century average.

Why do some of the products use different reference periods?

The maps show temperature anomalies relative to the 1971-2000 base period. This period is used because it has the widest distribution for historical data, which enables more resolution (detail) for comparing region-by-region effects. For the global-scale averages (global land and ocean, land-only, ocean-only, and hemispheric time series), the reference period is adjusted to the 20th Century average for conceptual simplicity (the period is more familiar to more people, and establishes a longer-term average). The adjustment does not change the shape of the time series or affect the trends within it.

How often and when is the global average temperature dataset updated?

The dataset is updated every month. Data for a month are typically made available by the 15th of the following month.

What is the difference between the gridded dataset and the index values?

The land and ocean gridded dataset is a large file (~24 mb) that contains monthly temperature anomalies across the globe on a 5 deg x 5 deg grid. The anomalies are calculated with respect to the 1971-2000 base period. Gridded data is available for every month from January 1880 to the most recent month available. You can use it to examine anomalies in different regions of the earth on a month-by-month basis. The index values are an average of the gridded values (see question #7); however, the anomalies are provided with respect to the 20th century (1901-2000) average. They are most useful for tracking the big-picture evolution of temperatures across larger parts of the planet, up to and including the entire global surface temperature.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.html

petegz28
07-16-2010, 12:05 PM
So no Orange is looking at data from 1971-2000???

Wow, and here I thought the planet was at least 130 years old??? :doh!:

orange
07-16-2010, 12:05 PM
Who isn't being honest, orange? Nice parse there to try and make things out to say something I didn't say. I posted the chart. Are you calling BS on the chart? Or is this just another one of your typical, self-congratulatory tactics where you parse a couple words and try to spin shit?

Where's the original? That's what Forward Dante asked. Just answer it.

petegz28
07-16-2010, 12:06 PM
Where's the original? That's what forward_dante asked. Just answer it.

In other words you can't disprove the chart. Got it.

petegz28
07-16-2010, 12:08 PM
Where's the original? That's what Forward Dante asked. Just answer it.

Wow, 2 people made up the same chart???? What a co-inky-dink!!!

http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/vostok.png

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/

orange
07-16-2010, 12:10 PM
In other words you can't disprove the chart. Got it.

In other words - YOU GOT NUTHIN'.

orange
07-16-2010, 12:11 PM
So no Orange is looking at data from 1971-2000???

Wow, and here I thought the planet was at least 130 years old??? :doh!:

The maps show temperature anomalies relative to the 1971-2000 base period.

Are you really this much of a moron? You don't know what a "baseline" is?

petegz28
07-16-2010, 12:12 PM
This is the chart orange and Dante, I guess, want you to believe...

http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/histo61.png


Here is the same chart with just a TOUCH more context of the bigger picture...

http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/histo5.png

petegz28
07-16-2010, 12:12 PM
The maps show temperature anomalies relative to the 1971-2000 base period.

Are you really this much of a moron? You don't know what a "baseline" is?

Yea, a 30 year baseline on a planet billions of years old is pretty reliable.

orange
07-16-2010, 12:56 PM
http://carnalreason.org/images/feb08/globaltemp.jpg

Yea, a 30 year baseline on a planet billions of years old is pretty reliable.

What does this mean?

Temperature variation from the 1961-1990 average


It's right there on your picture - along the left side.

ROFLROFLROFL

petegz28
07-16-2010, 01:01 PM
What does this mean?

Temperature variation from the 1961-1990 average


It's right there on your picture - along the left side.

ROFLROFLROFL

Once again, orange has to parse crap and spin it around. I never posted the chart to justify anything about an average, now did I? I posted the chart to show the actual data, not in relation to some average. Keep trying. ROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFL

Keep trying to discredit the chart, orange. Perhaps one of these times you might actually be able to prove it is wrong????

petegz28
07-16-2010, 01:05 PM
I give up, orange. You're right. All the charts that show what the temp was before 1880 and variations in such are just hooey. You got me beat. We should focus on 1880 and afterwards.

Hydrae
07-16-2010, 01:05 PM
The maps show temperature anomalies relative to the 1971-2000 base period.

Are you really this much of a moron? You don't know what a "baseline" is?

At least the early part of which is during the time period we were being told we were entering another ice age. In other words, they are comparing against what was, at least at the time, lower than average temperatures. No wonder we look like we are warming when comparing against cooling temps.

This is why this is such a silly argument in my opinion, we look at 130 years of data and think we understand trends that span thousands of years. We are such an arrogant species.

orange
07-16-2010, 01:06 PM
I posted the chart to show the actual data, not in relation to some average.

DUDE! Are you blind?! That "actual data" of yours IS in relation to some average. JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER TEMPERATURE CHART including the others posted in this thread.

Your chart SAYS IT RIGHT THERE PLAIN AS DAY.

petegz28
07-16-2010, 01:07 PM
At least the early part of which is during the time period we were being told we were entering another ice age. In other words, they are comparing against what was, at least at the time, lower than average temperatures. No wonder we look like we are warming when comparing against cooling temps.

This is why this is such a silly argument in my opinion, we look at 130 years of data and think we understand trends that span thousands of years. We are such an arrogant species.

It's called, cherry picking. Something orange often accuses others of doing but obviously has no problems doing it himself. And the whole 1880 based argument is what the entire Hockey Stick theory revolves around. Don't look at what happened before 1880, look at what happened after. And should someone present a chart showing what happened prior to 1880 then you must discredit it in any way possible.

orange
07-16-2010, 01:08 PM
I give up, orange. You're right. All the charts that show what the temp was before 1880 and variations in such are just hooey. You got me beat. We should focus on 1880 and afterwards.

You're finally making some sense. 400,000 years ago sure doesn't matter today. What matters today is "today."

Hydrae
07-16-2010, 01:09 PM
It's called, cherry picking. Something orange often accuses others of doing but obviously has no problems doing it himself. And the whole 1880 based argument is what the entire Hockey Stick theory revolves around. Don't look at what happened before 1880, look at what happened after. And should someone present a chart showing what happened prior to 1880 then you must discredit it in any way possible.

Actually it appears they use the 1880 mark because they have much more accurate data starting with that date. It is not just some arbitrary date they decided worked for their point.

petegz28
07-16-2010, 01:09 PM
You're finally making some sense. 400,000 years ago sure doesn't matter today. What matters today is "today."

There you have it. Context be DAMNED! If we say we are hotter today than ever before then damn it, we must be!!! Don't let historical context confuse you or anything.

The fact is, orange, TODAY we are not as warm as we once were. :eek:

orange
07-16-2010, 01:10 PM
Actually it appears they use the 1880 mark because they have much more accurate data starting with that date. It is not just some arbitrary date they decided worked for their point.

Well, thank you for that!

petegz28
07-16-2010, 01:12 PM
Actually it appears they use the 1880 mark because they have much more accurate data starting with that date. It is not just some arbitrary date they decided worked for their point.

While there may be some merit to that, the fact is the charts they try to use, such as the hockey stick chart, combine ice core based data with thermometer based. The thermometer based data began in 1880. Thus using one chart with two different measuring techiques unequaly to try and present a factual picture.

Hydrae
07-16-2010, 01:15 PM
While there may be some merit to that, the fact is the charts they try to use, such as the hockey stick chart, combine ice core based data with thermometer based. The thermometer based data began in 1880. Thus using one chart with two different measuring techiques unequaly to try and present a factual picture.

Now you are conflating two issues. The hockey stick chart (which at least one of your opponents in this thread has agreed is useless) is indeed a piece of crap for that very reason. But you are trying to use the same argument against charts only showing the temperature readings. These charts from 1880 to present at least present consistent data sources.

I agree with your general perspective but you have to keep on topic, you keep sidetracking yourself IMO.

petegz28
07-16-2010, 01:15 PM
Actually it appears they use the 1880 mark because they have much more accurate data starting with that date. It is not just some arbitrary date they decided worked for their point.

And, just to cede your point, I have already posted charts, with links for orange, that show the actual increase when measured based consistently on ice core measurments show the actual spike in temperatures is still well below the peak based on the data we have.

And when I say measured consistently, I mean the entire data was derived from the same method of measurement. Not mish-mashed with one mearing method used for one time and another for another.

petegz28
07-16-2010, 01:18 PM
Now you are conflating two issues. The hockey stick chart (which at least one of your opponents in this thread has agreed is useless) is indeed a piece of crap for that very reason. But you are trying to use the same argument against charts only showing the temperature readings. These charts from 1880 to present at least present consistent data sources.

I agree with your general perspective but you have to keep on topic, you keep sidetracking yourself IMO.

How so? I have presnted charts that have not co-mingled measuring techniques that seem to prove what I have said.

While 1880 may have been some break through year, technologically speaking, we cannot discount other methods of measurement. Specifically when such alternative methods concur with the thermometer method, but in addition provide a greater context of what the 1880-forward method means in actual historical perspective.

In fact, one could logically conclude that since the ice core based method does concur with the thermometer method, that had the thermometer method been in existence prior to 1880 in would also concur with the ice core method. Thus stating that we are not hotter than we ever have been before.

FD
07-16-2010, 01:25 PM
This is the chart orange and Dante, I guess, want you to believe...



Here is the same chart with just a TOUCH more context of the bigger picture...


This is all fine, just keep in mind that these are not measurements, but estimates, that those estimates are uncertain and that that uncertainty increases the further back in time you go. The chart should include confidence intervals so we know how much uncertainty there is, and also keep in mind that these are only estimates for one spot on Earth.

petegz28
07-16-2010, 01:40 PM
This is all fine, just keep in mind that these are not measurements, but estimates, that those estimates are uncertain and that that uncertainty increases the further back in time you go. The chart should include confidence intervals so we know how much uncertainty there is, and also keep in mind that these are only estimates for one spot on Earth.

Well their estimates seem to be on par with the 1880 going forward measurements.


You can choose to ignore the historical data for whatever reason you wish, FD, that's your decision, not mine. All I can do is present to you the data dating back well before 1880.

FD
07-16-2010, 01:50 PM
Well their estimates seem to be on par with the 1880 going forward measurements.


You can choose to ignore the historical data for whatever reason you wish, FD, that's your decision, not mine. All I can do is present to you the data dating back well before 1880.

I'm not ignoring these estimates at all. I just wanted to point out some important caveats.

petegz28
07-16-2010, 01:57 PM
I'm not ignoring these estimates at all. I just wanted to point out some important caveats.

You mean like...

"It's part of an overall trend," says Jay Lawrimore, climate analysis chief at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center. "Global temperatures ... have been rising for the last 100-plus years. Much of the increase is due to increases in greenhouse gases."

There were exceptions: June was cooler than average across Scandinavia, southeastern China, and the northwestern USA, according to NOAA's report

Or...

He says too many of the weather stations NOAA uses are in warmer urban areas.

Or...

"The only reliable data set right now is satellite," D'Aleo says.

He says NASA satellite data shows the average temperature in June was 0.43 degrees higher than normal. NOAA says it was 1.22 degrees higher.

FD
07-16-2010, 02:13 PM
You mean like...


Yep.

Garcia Bronco
07-16-2010, 02:39 PM
The AGW nuts amuse me to no end. By their own research they acknowledge that the globe has gone throuhg warming and cooling trends even before man dominated or existed on this planet...now though....it must be because of man. GTFOH Losers.

Garcia Bronco
07-16-2010, 02:40 PM
You're finally making some sense. 400,000 years ago sure doesn't matter today. What matters today is "today."

Not when you try to draw a conclusion based on a timeline of a subject that spans millions of years. 200 years isn't even enough information to make one data point.

irishjayhawk
07-16-2010, 03:30 PM
The AGW nuts amuse me to no end. By their own research they acknowledge that the globe has gone throuhg warming and cooling trends even before man dominated or existed on this planet...now though....it must be because of man. GTFOH Losers.

Talk about oversimplification. But even so, common sense dictates concern.

Not a single anti-AGW person will disagree the greenhouse effect is real. Yet, when you apply that same, basic concept to the entire climate of the planet, everyone throws a fit.

Bwana
07-16-2010, 03:32 PM
http://doesitallmatter2.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/al-gore.jpg

Garcia Bronco
07-16-2010, 04:21 PM
Talk about oversimplification. But even so, common sense dictates concern.

Not a single anti-AGW person will disagree the greenhouse effect is real. Yet, when you apply that same, basic concept to the entire climate of the planet, everyone throws a fit.

From a research perspective on something longitudinal like global climate, it is as simple as that. You cannot draw an inference on 200 years of data. Not to mention that that data has been collected in a number of ways and may no accurately reflect that actual temperature. Further, green house gases have been on the rise for the past 20 years...yet global temps have dropped over the past ten years. Further still, you'll have people claim that CO2 is the largest green house gas and it isn't...it's water vapor.