Global Warming & Earth’s Global Temperature Measurement

[OldWiseGuy]

What makes you think that the view of climate scientists is not holistic?

Maybe their view is too holistic, too complex.

 

[Heissonear]

What makes people think there is one temperature value that represents accurately "Global Temperature" for each year of the past century?

And to declare such to a decimal place, even acurate to two decimal places?

And then to graph the data points like they represent earths temperature change over the past century?

Or have we been talked into incomplete data sets and the value of any anomalies from such.

The Bandwagon of pseudo-science has been moving through.

Who has joined and supported the AGW Bandwagon agenda? Who has let 150 ppm additional CO2 in the atmosphere change everything?

Remember the propaganda: it is all bad and we must take dramatic actions immediately.

.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

What makes people think there is one temperature value that represents accurately "Global Temperature" for each year of the past century?

And to declare such to a decimal place, even acurate to two decimal places?

And then to graph the data points like they represent earths temperature change over the past century?

Or have we been talked into incomplete data sets and the value of any anomalies from such.

The Bandwagon of pseudo-science has been moving through.

Who has joined and supported the AGW Bandwagon agenda? Who has let 150 ppm additional CO2 in the atmosphere change everything?

Remember the propaganda: it is all bad and we must take dramatic actions immediately.

.

I wouldn't worry too much about taking action. We haven't the brains or the will to do anything about it. Sometimes it's easier to just live with a problem than to do anything about it.

 

[Loudmouth]

What makes people think there is one temperature value that represents accurately "Global Temperature" for each year of the past century?

What makes you think you even understand what scientists are saying?

 

[Heissonear]

The recent "warmist ever" hype is childish.


‘Warmest year’, ‘pause’, and all that | Climate Etc.

Reply by nottawa rafter on January 16, 2015 at 2:15 pm

"How many press releases or articles will actually cite the hundredths of a degree that the increase is over previous records. I bet not many. They would risk being laughed at.

But given the plateau we are on, very likely even with a relatively flat trend, there will be record warm years in the years ahead. Any records, even 0.01 C every 10 years, will be milked for all its worth."

People on the CAGW Bandwagon have become desperate for CO2 induced Global Warming PROOF.

Presenting statements that rely on 0.01 °C accuracy in Earth's Global Temperature for any year is revealing.

 

[Heissonear]

There is a history of "poor collection sites" where earth temperature databases get their measurements. And it's not pretty.


January 23, 2015 - Australians cool Melbourne

Mr Trewin also noted that the Bureau had recently changed its Melbourne monitoring site from the Royal Society of Victoria on La Trobe Street in the city to Olympic Park, near Rod Laver Arena. Maximum temperatures recorded at the new site were on average 1.2 degrees cooler, particularly on cool days, because air coming from the south and west was travelling over parklands rather than the through the city.

— Melbourne weather: Summer 2015 still hot, just last year was hotter

 

[Heissonear]

Accuracy is mute: just release of propaganda. Who has fallen for the Spin in our day?

The Washington Post: Politics

The heat is on; NOAA, NASA say 2014 warmest year on record

FILE - In this July 1, 2014 file photo, Amanda Ouellet wipes her face with a cold wet towel to cool off while working outside holding an advertising sign in Las Vegas.

Federal science officials announced Friday that for the third time in a decade, the globe sizzled to the hottest year on record. Both the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA calculated that in 2014 the world had its hottest year in 135 years of record-keeping. Earlier, the Japanese weather agency and an independent group out of University of California Berkeley also measured 2014 as the hottest on record. (John Locher, File/Associated Press)

By Associated Press January 16
WASHINGTON — For the third time in a decade, the globe sizzled to the hottest year on record, federal scientists announced Friday.

Both the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA calculated that in 2014 the world had its hottest year in 135 years of record-keeping. Earlier, the Japanese weather agency and an independent group out of University of California Berkeley also measured 2014 as the hottest on record.

NOAA said 2014 averaged 58.24 degrees Fahrenheit (14.58 degrees Celsius), 1.24 degrees (0.69 degrees Celsius) above the 20th-century average.

But NASA, which calculates temperatures slightly differently, put 2014’s average temperature at 58.42 degrees Fahrenheit (14.68 degrees Celsius) which is 1.22 degrees (0.68 degrees Celsius) above the average of the years 1951-1980.

Earth broke NOAA records set in 2010 and 2005. The last time the Earth set an annual NOAA record for cold was in 1911.

NOAA also said last month was the hottest December on record. Six months in 2014 set marks for heat. The last time Earth set a monthly cold record was in December 1916.

“The globe is warmer now than it has been in the last 100 years and more likely in at least 5,000 years,” said climate scientist Jennifer Francis of Rutgers University, who wasn’t part of either research team. “Any wisps of doubt that human activities are at fault are now gone with the wind.”

All rather factually stated. Do they tell you the in hundredths of a degree? What are they trying to promote, truth? It'spropaganda.


Source: washingtonpost.com

The heat is on; NOAA, NASA say 2014 warmest year on record - The Washington Post

 

[RickG]

What makes people think there is one temperature value that represents accurately "Global Temperature" for each year of the past century?

There isn't a "one temperature value". What climatologists look at are anomalies. Do you have any idea how global average temperatures are calculated?

 

[[serious]]

Accuracy is mute: just release of propaganda. Who has fallen for the Spin in our day?






All rather factually stated. Do they tell you the in hundredths of a degree? What are they trying to promote, truth? It'spropaganda.


Source: washingtonpost.com

The heat is on; NOAA, NASA say 2014 warmest year on record - The Washington Post

Well, it took 7 pages, but you did eventually find someone using absolute temperature.

if your point is that the Washington post is terrible at reporting science stories, I agree. The temperature data does not provide necessary resolution to determine the average temperature of the planet to that precision. Washington post is very clearly not an authority on the topic.

The cited NASA page in the article, http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ doesn't provide the reported average.

The NOAA site, Global Analysis - Annual 2014 | State of the Climate | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) gives a 504 error.

If you can track down anywhere on those respective sites that those numbers are given, I'd be more than happy to address those organizations as well.

 

[Heissonear]

Well, it took 7 pages, but you did eventually find someone using absolute temperature.

if your point is that the Washington post is terrible at reporting science stories, I agree. The temperature data does not provide necessary resolution to determine the average temperature of the planet to that precision. Washington post is very clearly not an authority on the topic.

The cited NASA page in the article, http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ doesn't provide the reported average.

The NOAA site, Global Analysis - Annual 2014 | State of the Climate | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) gives a 504 error.

If you can track down anywhere on those respective sites that those numbers are given, I'd be more than happy to address those organizations as well.

Do you realize the "deviation from the past 16 year flat line temperature being presented to a hundredth of a degree" was orchestrated for what the President was going to promote during the State of the Union speech?

If not, then you are not being observant to the times and situation.

Do we just let the high level charade carry on, which allows the twisting of government science agencies? Turn our head from dealing with the corruption the Scam manifests?

The Kingdom is for the Righteous. We are currently seeing the opposite on earth.

 

[Heissonear]

What makes people think there is one temperature value that represents accurately "Global Temperature" for each year of the past century?

And to declare such to a decimal place is bad enough, but to present such to two decimal places?

And then to graph the data points like they represent earths temperature change over the past century?

Or have we been talked into incomplete data sets and the value of any anomalies from such.

 

[[serious]]

What makes people think there is one temperature value that represents accurately "Global Temperature" for each year of the past century?

And to declare such to a decimal place is bad enough, but to present such to two decimal places?

And then to graph the data points like they represent earths temperature change over the past century?

Or have we been talked into incomplete data sets and the value of any anomalies from such.

Temperature anomaly is not "one global temperature" we've been over this.

 

[[serious]]

Do you realize the "deviation from the past 16 year flat line temperature being presented to a hundredth of a degree" was orchestrated for what the President was going to promote during the State of the Union speech?

If not, then you are not being observant to the times and situation.

Do we just let the high level charade carry on, which allows the twisting of government science agencies? Turn our head from dealing with the corruption the Scam manifests?

The Kingdom is for the Righteous. We are currently seeing the opposite on earth.

I assume you didn't locate NASA or NOAA giving absolute temperatures then.

 

[RickG]

What makes people think there is one temperature value that represents accurately "Global Temperature" for each year of the past century?

You don't have a clue how GAT's are calculated, do you?

And to declare such to a decimal place is bad enough, but to present such to two decimal places?

You seem to be focusing on a single point rather than what is actually important, THE TREND. Do you know the difference between weather and climate?

And then to graph the data points like they represent earths temperature change over the past century?

And how do they not represent a change in global average temperatures over the past century?

 

[Heissonear]

.
Trying to make anomaly-based observations and calculations the focus?

The issue is the "errant promotion" of such anomalies based on incomplete and inaccurate data!!!!


From Climate, Etc:

Wagathon | January 16, 2015 at 11:49 am | Reply

“Just how accurately were ocean temperatures recorded in 1850??? I would love to see the data."

You can bet they weren’t pretending to be accurate to the hundredth of a degree, only to be adjusted 100 years later with a global replacement of raw data multiplied by some unexplained factor –e.g., corrected for the effect of taking the temperatures at different times of day such as when clocks were changed in places where daylight savings time was observed.

Source: ‘Warmest year’, ‘pause’, and all that | Climate Etc.


Do you get it?

This is just one of thousand of "accuracy issues" and "errant promotions" not being faced with integrity by Team Bandwagon during their charade of information publicly presented, like the 2014 Global Temperature being promoted.

Take your Bandwagon posts to Climate, Etc. Face the crowd who do not see science add up to what you conclude. Lay it in front of them and discuss, and observe what they say!!!

 

[RickG]

.
Trying to make anomaly-based observations and calculations the focus?

The issue is the "errant promotion" of such anomalies based on incomplete and inaccurate data!!!!


From Climate, Etc:



Source: ‘Warmest year’, ‘pause’, and all that | Climate Etc.


Do you get it?

This is just one of thousand of "accuracy issues" and "errant promotions" not being faced with integrity by Team Bandwagon during their charade of information publicly presented, like the 2014 Global Temperature being promoted.

Take your Bandwagon posts to Climate, Etc. Face the crowd who do not see science add up to what you conclude. Lay it in front of them and discuss, and observe what they say!!!

Your source is from Judith Curry's blog, a well renowned climate change denier. Note that she makes it very clear that in her disclaimer, that the opinions expressed there do not in any way reflect the opinions of Georgia Tech. In the link you posted, her whole argument is based on a NY Times article about the NASA news release in which she adds her own context claiming there are no details. Well duh! Of course not, it was a news release intended for the lay public, not professional scientists.

However, she did provide a link to the NASA news release. I strongly suggest you follow that link and compare what they have to say with Curry's comments. In reality she misrepresents the context of the news release. The significance of the 2014 record year is that it came during a neutral ENSO year, while previous recent records are attached to ENSO years. Additionally, NASA and NOAA both make it very clear that the concern is with the climate trend and not a single record year or by how much it was a record.

Curry knows very well how NASA and NOAA's data is collected and processed and that not only she, but you and I can obtain that very information in detail as well. And BTW, while you are jumping on Curry's band wagon, you should know that she was a team member of the Berkeley EarthBerkeley Earth
Berkeley Earth
project that investigated the reliability of NASA and NOAA's temperature data. The conclusion of the published project found themselves in agreement with the temperature data. The significance of that project is that it was funded by and researched by 100% climate deniers, one of which is no longer a denier.

She also makes the comment that there is not any word from HadCrut4, which is misleading at the best. Hadcrut4 is the analysis HADCrut uses. It will be forthcoming from HADCrut in a week or so. She also makes the comment that the people at HADCRUT didn't think this would be a record year. What she is conveniently leaving out is that HADCrut does not include most of Arctic, which NASA and NOAA do. The significance of that is that it is the Arctic in which the warming is greatest, thus not covered as well by HADCrut. HADCrut also uses a different base period. That is why the HADCrut people made such a comment, that is if they actually did.

 

[[serious]]

.
Trying to make anomaly-based observations and calculations the focus?

The issue is the "errant promotion" of such anomalies based on incomplete and inaccurate data!!!!


From Climate, Etc:



Source: ‘Warmest year’, ‘pause’, and all that | Climate Etc.


Do you get it?

This is just one of thousand of "accuracy issues" and "errant promotions" not being faced with integrity by Team Bandwagon during their charade of information publicly presented, like the 2014 Global Temperature being promoted.

Take your Bandwagon posts to Climate, Etc. Face the crowd who do not see science add up to what you conclude. Lay it in front of them and discuss, and observe what they say!!!

Wait, are you questioning how we can measure stuff more accurately now than we could 150 years ago?

Also, average temperature anomaly, not global temperature. Still.

 

[Heissonear]

Wait, are you questioning how we can measure stuff more accurately now than we could 150 years ago?

Also, average temperature anomaly, not global temperature. Still.

Those who follow Team Bandwagon have to be shown the error they stand in and promote. But they neglect the fundamentals of what causes their error.

 

[Heissonear]

Your source is from Judith Curry's blog, a well renowned climate change denier.

.
You need to re-evaluate your CAGW Bandwagon position.

Judith Curry did, after being a part of the IPCC working group and then witnessing Climategate. Firsthand!

Professor Curry is completing her second edition text of the thermodynamics of earth's atmosphere.

This professor you publically have called a Denier.

What is she a denier of?

Why do people like you label and discard such people?

Why did you come here and post about rudimentary use of anomalies? Is that not 8th grade science methodology? But you "seriously" posted such. That is childish.

As presented to you months ago, I do not continue to discuss with those who position themselves above others through Elite-ism.

It's like Judith and others do not know what you know.

.

 

[[serious]]

Those who follow Team Bandwagon have to be shown the error they stand in and promote. But they neglect the fundamentals of what causes their error.

1850 they, um, fundamentally didn't have a whole bunch of satellites? Lack of infrastructure to transmit the data quickly? Fewer weather stations?