Submitted by Charlton Stanley (aka Otteray Scribe), Guest Blogger
Approximately 1,000 weather reporting stations all over the world have been monitoring local temperatures for decades. Temperature data have been compiled and analyzed by NASA scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York.
Nine of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since the year 2000. The tenth? From the 20th Century, that was 1998. Temperature rise is not completely steady and consistent from one year to the next. That is due to factors such as volcanic eruptions and other natural causes; however, trends are the important thing.
We can see from the short video below the flip that Earth continues to experience warmer temperatures than several decades ago. The average temperature around the globe in 2011 was 0.92 degrees F (0.51 C) warmer than the mid-20th century baseline. Weather experts warn that a consistent global average change of even a half-degree Fahrenheit can have catastrophic effects on global weather patterns. Anyone recall April and May 2011?
130 years in 27 seconds:
If you keep repeating it sooner or later you will become a believer too LOL
Bron repeat after me
HOTTEST ON RECORD…………… HOTTEST ON RECORD…………..
HOTTEST ON
RECORD
I will lead the blind by ways they have not known, along unfamiliar paths I will guide them; I will turn the darkness into light before them and make the rough places smooth. These are the things I will do; I will not forsake them.
Isaiah 42:16
Alright Seagull are you coming along or am I gonna have to slap you around some.
Joe Blow:
who doesnt think there is a heat island effect?
People have been leaving cities during summers for years.
And people are using concrete mass in homes for passive solar heating and also using wind across water to cool homes.
Whomever thinks that cities dont cause heat islands is a fool or worse.
Not interested.
Keep talking to yourself, Joe.
For those who believe that there is no heat island effect. From the EPA Link above.
Like the heat wave index, the percentage of the United States
affected by heat waves has also risen steadily since the 1970s (see
Figures 2 and 3). The recent period of increasing heat is distinguished by a rise in extremely high nighttime temperatures
The recent period of increasing heat is distinguished by a rise in extremely high nighttime temperatures
The recent period of increasing heat is distinguished by a rise in extremely high nighttime temperatures
The recent period of increasing heat is distinguished by a rise in extremely high nighttime temperatures
The reason why concrete and asphalt are so hot but the cool deck around the pool is not. Concrete and asphalt retain heat.
I’m not trying to win an argument and certainly wouldn’t win one with you if I was. Your mind is already made up and it’s all the COCK brothers fault.
Joe,
I see your response to the information that I provide is to comment on the number of paragraphs in the articles I post. That is certainly a good tactic for winning an argument.
BTW, professionals who work in the field do not seem to be concerned with the adjustment. There is no outcry from professionals who actually used the data.
as far as you know, right ?
There seems vanishingly small probability that we could achieve that level in the foreseeable future.
World wide planting campaign. Plants love the stuff
“Do you think thats proper handling our would or could you consider this data tampering ?”
My understanding is that recorded data was adjusted to account for bias in the instruments from that time period which would be entirely appropriate.
If the adjustment was faulty, or dishonest make the argument. Explain it to us.
BTW, professionals who work in the field do not seem to be concerned with the adjustment. There is no outcry from professionals who actually used the data.
“No need for speculation. The worlds top climate scientist has already testified years ago that 350PPM is just right see 350.org
The problem is the weather was much much worse when CO2 was below 350PPM as evidence in the empirical data of everything from hurricanes to rain that ends up in the drain. So the questioned poised is. If 350PPM is just right to make the weather stable why not make it 300 like the old days and see what happens.”
So far as I know, no one is advocating for 300 ppm.
You, yourself, seem to agree that 300 ppm would not improve conditions and would likely create other problems.
There seems vanishingly small probability that we could achieve that level in the foreseeable future.
What is the relevance of 300ppm of 0 ppm, I mean aside from some gee-whiz speculation?
From the EPA I’m sure most of you would agree is a very trustful source.
Key Points
•
Heat waves occurred with high frequency in the 1930s, and these
remain the most severe heat waves in the U.S. historical record
(see Figure 1). Many years of intense drought (the “Dust Bowl”)
contributed to these heat waves by depleting soil moisture and
reducing the moderating effects of evaporation.
There is no clear trend over the entire period tracked by the index. Although it is hard to see in Figure 1 (because of the extreme
events of the 1930s), heat wave frequency decreased in the 1960s
and 1970s but has risen since then (see Figure 1).
Like the heat wave index, the percentage of the United States
affected by heat waves has also risen steadily since the 1970s (see
Figures 2 and 3). The recent period of increasing heat is distinguished by a rise in extremely high nighttime temperatures
The Graph clearly shows how hot the 30’s to 40’s were.
http://www.epa.gov/climate/climatechange/pdfs/print_heat-waves.pdf
Got 9 on that one, at least your consistent.
How climate deniers abuse statistics to mislead
By James Temple
July 22, 2013
http://www.sfchronicle.com/technology/dotcommentary/article/How-climate-deniers-abuse-statistics-to-mislead-4677033.php
In 1998, the global mean temperature was 58.3 degrees Fahrenheit, according to NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. In 2012, it was 58.2 degrees.
That’s a 0.1 degree decrease. Look, I just disproved global warming! Hummers for everyone!
As ridiculous as it sounds, that simplistic analysis is the basis for one of the most frequently cited critiques of climate science. Indeed, any time I write about global warming, an e-mail arguing that the globe hasn’t heated in 15 years reliably lands in my in-box.
Those readers are probably taking their talking points from the many professional climate deniers who repeat this inaccuracy as often as possible, including in opinion pieces in Forbes and the Wall Street Journal.
“Warming ended 15 years ago, and global temperatures have stopped increasing since then, if not actually cooled, even though global CO{-2} emissions have soared over this period,” wrote Peter Ferrara, a director at the Heartland Institute, in a representative Forbes.com piece.
This conclusion isn’t at all surprising from a conservative think tank that routinely goes to great lengths to sow doubts about the science of global warming in the public mind. The problem is that arriving at it requires ignoring everything but the two dots on a chart that, in isolation, seem to make their case…
The 1998 gambit…
It becomes immediately obvious that this is a classic case of manipulating statistics to reach a predetermined conclusion, specifically by cherry-picking the start date. That red line that deniers are relying on doesn’t actually conform to the shape of that chart.
If you want to know whether a climate change denier is attempting to mislead you, the first clue is the use of the year 1998. It was one of the hottest years on record thanks to an unusually strong El Niño.
“The 1998 spike caused by an extraordinary El Niño event has been statistically abused for a long time,” said Reto Ruedy, a research associate at NASA, in an e-mail. “What appeared to be an extraordinary global temperature anomaly 15 years ago is now an expected occurrence and has been – within the margin of error – equaled 8 times since then.”
In fact, he pointed out, the margin for error in these numbers is about 0.1 degree Fahrenheit, so there’s actually no statistical difference between the years 1998 and 2012.
The question is not was the data adjusted but whether the adjustment is reasonable and appropriate. The people who actually work with this data seem to think the data has been handled appropriately.
Excellent question
So if the temperature record was recorded and it remained that way for years say 50 years and then one day somebody said you know what I don’t think it was that hot 50 years ago. I’m gonna adjust it and make it cooler. Then they said I dont think it was that hot 49 years ago think I’ll make it cooler.
Do you think thats proper handling our would or could you consider this data tampering ?
“He created a fake memo and committed identity fraud. A very ethical person which forced his resignation. ”
His forced resignation ought to tell you something – there are zealots every where and the institution deals with problems as it becomes aware of them. The incident does not seem to have changed the opinions of members, or the consensus of the organization regarding this matter.
“The president of the AGU Carol Finn is a federal employee by the way.”
Your argument seems to be that the actions of one government employee the integrity of all government employees. And further, that government employment calls into question the integrity of a government employee, in particular Carol Finn.
This is an ad hominem attack that reveals faulty reasoning at two points. First there is no reason to believe that bad actions by one government employee reflects on all government employees. The second is that Carol Finn’s employment in government somehow suggest she is not a capable leader.
The fact is that thousands of professionals in this field choose Finn to represent them.
10 paragraphs is an excerpt ? No need to visit their website and I’m sure they appreciate that. Methinks you copy paste to much.
“How long does the record go back ?”
Systematic recording of weather data by the weather service began in the US in the mid 1800’s.
“Do you believe that the record is accurate now or before it was adjusted?”
Even back yard mechanics know that sensors, even something as simple as a MAP sensor, sometimes have to be adjusted – biased or calibrated – to give accurate results to work with the rest of the electronics in the auto.
It is my understanding that much of this data was collected by automated equipment. The question is not was the data adjusted but whether the adjustment is reasonable and appropriate. The people who actually work with this data seem to think the data has been handled appropriately.
I don’t know what you people are telling Joe Blow to go away.
This is a wonderful opportunity to demonstrate the many fallacies of deniers.
If you care about global warming then you must agree with me that it is important to give Joe all the time and space he needs to present all his inaccurate facts and flawed reasoning.