bu$hleaguer
Well-Known Member
You've lost your touch, Buck. I expect more from you. Pretty lame tonight thodid you just respond twice to the same post?
that's a meltdown right there.
2014 set to be hottest year ever
- Thread starter UncleBuck
- Start date
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Good job not automatically discounting the evidence based on political ideology like a lot of other members here do
bu$hleaguer
Well-Known Member
Nah, you and I have chatted before- I don't fall into one party or another, that's what's got us so fucked at the moment.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
the sharpest mind in apache junction is still incomprehensibly stupid to anyone outside of apache junction.
Sativied
Well-Known Member
The measurements in the Netherlands go back to 1706, and 2014 it is the hottest year ever measured.
http://www.knmi.nl/cms/content/121129/2014_waarschijnlijk_record_warm
In dutch, graphs use Celcius.
I have no complaints as selfish as that may be.
http://www.knmi.nl/cms/content/121129/2014_waarschijnlijk_record_warm
In dutch, graphs use Celcius.
I have no complaints as selfish as that may be.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
the roses were blooming on the rose bushes until mid november here in denver. right now, it is 65 degrees out. i'm wearing shorts today. set to be this warm all month.
but @kelly4 will wait until the one day it snows to start a thread about global warming, and then stop posting about it when it stays in the 60's again for the next three weeks.
because he's so smart!
mr sunshine
Well-Known Member
Two white guys arguing over who's more racist.. I laughed so fucken hard when I read this thread!
Lmao that's funny , this was one of my favorite parts..did you just respond twice to the same post?
that's a meltdown right there.
Lol thanks guys I enjoyed it!
abe supercro
Well-Known Member
Sat lookin at 41f in the dirty mitten, def warmer than wat i expected. locos froze last winter; Looks like mao, I'll be waxin the Kar this feb.
OH andChristmas music makes me want to tear the radio off the wall.
OH andChristmas music makes me want to tear the radio off the wall.
Sativied
Well-Known Member
The weather has been off here for years, birds not flying to the south, flowers popping up months too early, trees staying green longer and/or become it again sooner. More bugs that are normally killed in larger numbers during freezing winters. I used to play in the snow and skate on ice this time a year. Which is also a benefit, less days below freezing point during the winter. I just hate chilly weather.
Here's a graph I retrieved from the future, average (day+night) winter only temps in NL "over the past 140 years".
Last edited:
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
normally it takes a couple thousand years for the temp to rise that much, not 140 years.
Sativied
Well-Known Member
There's no major debate here about whether it's normal or not. The temps increase because of the increasing amount of CO2 in the air caused by burning fossil fuel, and in turn warms up the ocean which heavily influences our weather. We have beautiful sand beaches and dunes that may actually become useful more than a few weeks a year.
So how does that work in the US, republicans are for global warming and democrats against? Is it about denying global warming to continue burning oil to continue producing and exporting?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
way too common sense.
pretty much.
they are playing the same game now that they did in the 1990s with tobacco, even going so far as to use the exact same groups like the heartland institute in a transparent attempt to muddy the straightforward science and delay any action in the right direction.
no matter how often you point out that it's the same set of groups now as it was then, our republicans refuse to learn from history. and science too.
it's imminently trollable.
heckler73
Well-Known Member
Wasn't the temperature record "adjusted" after 1997?
I'm not arguing the merits of it one way or the other, but think that should be analyzed in context. If the same 1997 weighting of station data was used in 2014, would it still hold that result?
Probably not... That said, one has to question the motive behind adjustments and how they reconcile historic records in light of them. Laymen are too quick to assume continuity of data quality, never mind some scientists.
Q. Does GISS do any data checking and alterations?
A. Yes. GISS applies semi-automatic quality control routines listing records that look unrealistic. After manual inspection, those data are either kept or rejected. GISS does make an adjustment to deal with potential artifacts associated with urban heat islands, whereby the long-term regional trend derived from rural stations is used instead of the trends from urban centers in the analysis.
Q. Does NASA/GISS skew the global temperature trends to better match climate models?
A. No.
When I consider things such as the bold portion, I question at what point does a rural area become urban? It must be a very hazy line, so how would one apply such a filter? And when "record" anomalies are within error bounds, how can one say definitively it is one or the other?
Numbers games like that are pure politics abusing the perspicacious enthusiasm of scientists.
see4
Well-Known Member
Not sure you understand the meaning of "on record". Let me try to break it down for you, "Picture Pages" style. You'll have lots of fun with crayons and pencils.
Ok. Let's start with the word "on". A preposition, to mean, "so as to be or remain supported by or suspended from", and then the word, "record", to mean, "an account in writing or the like preserving the memory or knowledge of facts or events."
Putting those together we get, "to be an account in writing preserving knowledge of facts", ie. "on record".
Therefore, someone with an IQ above; say, 5, would conclude that if something has deemed to be "on record" as the hottest year (insert any value here) recorded, one would assume that it is a known fact of what we can account for in recorded history. And having nothing whatsoever to do with some ancient burial site.. you dumb bag of sand.
You are dumber than a bag of sand, and nothing you say from here on out will ever change my opinion of you.
squarepush3r
Well-Known Member
NOAA Caught Cooling The Past
February 22, 2015
tags: [URL='https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/tag/temperature-adjustments/']Temperature Adjustments
By Paul Homewood
h/t AC Osborn
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13
NOAA claim that 2014 was the hottest year on record, with global temperatures 1.24F above the 20thC average of 57.0F.
In other words, 58.24F.
This is all very strange, because back in 1997, they said global temperatures were 62.45F!
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/1997/13
Now I am quite sure that temperatures have not really dropped by 4 degrees, or else glaciers would by now be advancing over the hill. And I do realise that NOAA and the rest like to talk in anomalies, rather than absolutes.
Nevertheless, if we have got so little idea of what global temperatures are, can we honestly have much confidence in claims of warmest years based on a few hundredths of a degree?
The plot thickens, however!
Back in 2007, NOAA offered this list of the 10 warmest years.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2007/13
The anomaly was set against the 1901-2000 baseline, just as it still is. Now compare with the current list of annual anomalies:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global
We discover that the anomaly for 2005 has increased from 0.60C to 0.65C. Similar increases have taken place in the other years. For instance, 1997 has been adjusted up by 0.06C, as has 1998 and 2006.
This has happened for the simple reason that the 1901-2000 baseline has been adjusted downwards, in other words cooling the past again, and all in the space of a few short years.
It’s funny how these adjustments always seem to go in the same direction!
[/URL]
February 22, 2015
tags: [URL='https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/tag/temperature-adjustments/']Temperature Adjustments
By Paul Homewood
h/t AC Osborn
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13
NOAA claim that 2014 was the hottest year on record, with global temperatures 1.24F above the 20thC average of 57.0F.
In other words, 58.24F.
This is all very strange, because back in 1997, they said global temperatures were 62.45F!
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/1997/13
Now I am quite sure that temperatures have not really dropped by 4 degrees, or else glaciers would by now be advancing over the hill. And I do realise that NOAA and the rest like to talk in anomalies, rather than absolutes.
Nevertheless, if we have got so little idea of what global temperatures are, can we honestly have much confidence in claims of warmest years based on a few hundredths of a degree?
The plot thickens, however!
Back in 2007, NOAA offered this list of the 10 warmest years.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2007/13
The anomaly was set against the 1901-2000 baseline, just as it still is. Now compare with the current list of annual anomalies:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global
We discover that the anomaly for 2005 has increased from 0.60C to 0.65C. Similar increases have taken place in the other years. For instance, 1997 has been adjusted up by 0.06C, as has 1998 and 2006.
This has happened for the simple reason that the 1901-2000 baseline has been adjusted downwards, in other words cooling the past again, and all in the space of a few short years.
It’s funny how these adjustments always seem to go in the same direction!
[/URL]
kelly4
Well-Known Member
-1 on my drive in today! When the oceans get to my front door they might freeze...