Antarctica hits highest temp recorded—63 F

[Denny Crane]

 

[barfo]

How long have the thermometers been there? How long has the air conditioner been there?

I don't know and I'll bet you don't either.

barfo

 

[3RA1N1AC]

I guess I thought they had better ways to track temperature globally, who knew it was just rusty old thermo meters (they are so old they call them thermo meters) in dilapidated industrial parks.

 

[Denny Crane]

I pity the fool that thinks those thermometers are recording the temperature of "the earth" somehow.

 

[Denny Crane]

I guess I thought they had better ways to track temperature globally, who knew it was just rusty old thermo meters (they are so old they call them thermo meters) in dilapidated industrial parks.

Those are actual photos.

The scientists do use the data from those thermometers.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

Are the air conditioners getting hotter then?

 

[Denny Crane]

 

[Denny Crane]

Are the air conditioners getting hotter then?

This year or last?

In antarctica, they'd have run more 40 years ago and this year than last year.

 

[Denny Crane]

 

[Denny Crane]

I'll stop posting the pictures, I think you get the idea.

There are LOTS more where those came from.

 

[Denny Crane]

sorry, one more, this one is a beauty.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

I think air conditioner warming is even scarier, as they get hotter and hotter they will only self perpetuate their cyclical inferno

 

[Denny Crane]

I think air conditioner warming is even scarier, as they get hotter and hotter they will only self perpetuate their cyclical inferno

You know, once the neighbor got one, I had to get one, too.

Here's a graph of GISTEMP raw and mathematically adjusted by the scientists.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

Where the fuck is clarinda? I bet marzys been there.

 

[Denny Crane]

Iowa.

"Ever since Obama paid for 2/3 of my solar panels, I run my air conditioner much more."

 

[SlyPokerDog]

The site that Denny is getting those pictures from also believes 9/11 is a giant government conspiracy.

http://www.justthinking.us/


Building 7 goes down.


Can you say, "Controlled demolition"?

 

[barfo]

I'll stop posting the pictures, I think you get the idea.

There are LOTS more where those came from.

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf

barfo

Tricks. I wouldn't expect any less.

 

[Denny Crane]

 

[3RA1N1AC]

Well, I'm with Denny on the building 7 nonsense. A fire? Really? It was one like 3 floors.

 

[MarAzul]

I don't think so. Not far from St Joesph Mo The closest I have been.

 

[barfo]

View attachment 4921

View attachment 4922

So, your rebuttal to a statistical study of all stations is to show results from ONE station that disagrees with the average?

That's something far less than convincing.

barfo

 

[3RA1N1AC]

Ive been to Iowa. Man, it sure was really some temperature there.

 

[Denny Crane]

So, your rebuttal to a statistical study of all stations is to show results from ONE station that disagrees with the average?

That's something far less than convincing.

barfo

No, barfo. It shows how since 1980, the math they're using makes the temperatures warmer at a station over an air conditioner than the raw values.

Your guy Menne also posted this graph in a slide presentation I found:



(The red arrow is mine, showing ~1980 when their math to "homogenize" the data kicks in)

The readings from a thermometer near an air conditioner cannot produce any sort of valid results. You can't tell, even with math tricks, how much the air conditioner was used.

 

[barfo]

No, barfo. It shows how since 1980, the math they're using makes the temperatures warmer at a station over an air conditioner than the raw values.

Yes, perhaps at "a" station in Iowa. However, the point of the paper was that when you look at all the stations, the effect of having crappy placement of thermometers was to decrease the temperature, not to increase it.

The readings from a thermometer near an air conditioner cannot produce any sort of valid results. You can't tell, even with math tricks, how much the air conditioner was used.

Why would the air conditioner be used more if the temperature was going down like you want so desperately to believe?

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Yes, perhaps at "a" station in Iowa. However, the point of the paper was that when you look at all the stations, the effect of having crappy placement of thermometers was to decrease the temperature, not to increase it.




Why would the air conditioner be used more if the temperature was going down like you want so desperately to believe?

barfo

But it increased it from about 0 to +.3 EVERYWHERE, barfo. See the arrow I made on the graph? That's when they started "homogenizing" the data. They want it to be hotter, so they made the math come out that way.

Also, you do realize that the stations he wrote about are only those in the USA. I'm sure that the stations in India are much better positioned and maintained.

On another note, another way to measure the temperature is from satellite. Those babies aren't sitting 4 feet from an air conditioner exhaust.

The inconvenient truth:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...andmark-that-chills-global-warming-alarmists/

For 33 years, we have had precise, objective temperature data that do not require guesswork corrections to compensate for uneven thermometer placement and non-climate surface temperature biases such as expanding urban heat islands and land-use changes. The satellite data, moreover, tell us the earth is warming at a more modest, gradual, and reassuring pace than was f

...

As a result, if global temperatures are rising as a result of human carbon dioxide emissions, the satellite sensors should report more warming in the lower troposphere than is actually occurring at the surface. In essence the satellite sensors should report a warming trend somewhat more severe than is actually occurring at the surface of the earth.

Surface temperature measurements, however, indicate more rapid warming at the surface of the earth than in the lower troposphere. According to James Hansen of NASA’s Goddard Institute, temperatures at the surface of the earth rose twice as fast during the past 33 years as the satellite data show. Surface temperatures compiled by the UK’s University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit reflect a similar warming trend.

With temperature data indicating more warming at the earth’s surface than in the earth’s lower troposphere, one of the following must be true: (1) the surface temperature data is more corrupted by heat biases such as expanding urban heat islands and localized land-use changes than the IPCC admits, (2) the warming of the past 33 years is primarily the result of factors other than greenhouse gas emissions, or (3) longstanding, widely believed assumptions about greenhouse gas theory are wrong.

 

[Denny Crane]

Why would the air conditioner be used more if the temperature was going down like you want so desperately to believe?

barfo

Too funny.

Because... the people went on vacation? It was a cold year some years and a warmer one others? They had to go home on furlough due to the sequester?

Whatever the case, the data are not valid.

 

[barfo]

But it increased it from about 0 to +.3 EVERYWHERE, barfo. See the arrow I made on the graph? That's when they started "homogenizing" the data. They want it to be hotter, so they made the math come out that way.

Also, you do realize that the stations he wrote about are only those in the USA. I'm sure that the stations in India are much better positioned and maintained.

On another note, another way to measure the temperature is from satellite. Those babies aren't sitting 4 feet from an air conditioner exhaust.

The inconvenient truth:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...andmark-that-chills-global-warming-alarmists/

For 33 years, we have had precise, objective temperature data that do not require guesswork corrections to compensate for uneven thermometer placement and non-climate surface temperature biases such as expanding urban heat islands and land-use changes. The satellite data, moreover, tell us the earth is warming at a more modest, gradual, and reassuring pace than was f

...

As a result, if global temperatures are rising as a result of human carbon dioxide emissions, the satellite sensors should report more warming in the lower troposphere than is actually occurring at the surface. In essence the satellite sensors should report a warming trend somewhat more severe than is actually occurring at the surface of the earth.

Surface temperature measurements, however, indicate more rapid warming at the surface of the earth than in the lower troposphere. According to James Hansen of NASA’s Goddard Institute, temperatures at the surface of the earth rose twice as fast during the past 33 years as the satellite data show. Surface temperatures compiled by the UK’s University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit reflect a similar warming trend.

With temperature data indicating more warming at the earth’s surface than in the earth’s lower troposphere, one of the following must be true: (1) the surface temperature data is more corrupted by heat biases such as expanding urban heat islands and localized land-use changes than the IPCC admits, (2) the warming of the past 33 years is primarily the result of factors other than greenhouse gas emissions, or (3) longstanding, widely believed assumptions about greenhouse gas theory are wrong.

James Taylor (don't I know that name from somewhere?) also just published an article, also in Forbes, that claims that this winter on the east coast disproves global warming.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2015/02/25/cold-and-snow-destroy-global-warming-claims/
So, not finding your link too compelling.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Not finding your stuff compelling at all.

You didn't bother to read your own link. It doesn't say the winter on the east coast disproves global warming at all.

It says it destroys global warming claims.

A very different proposition, ya think?

I'l quote you a bit of it, maybe you'll read my post if not your own link:

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated very clearly, “Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms.” Well, winters are clearly not becoming milder or bereft of heavy snowstorms.

 

[barfo]

Not finding your stuff compelling at all.

You didn't bother to read your own link.

Why would I? It's some paid crackpot from the Heartland Institute.
But I did skim it.

It doesn't say the winter on the east coast disproves global warming at all.

It says it destroys global warming claims.

A very different proposition, ya think?

Sounds like semantics to me, but... go ahead...

I'l quote you a bit of it, maybe you'll read my post if not your own link:

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated very clearly, “Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms.” Well, winters are clearly not becoming milder or bereft of heavy snowstorms.

Yeah, that's really silly of you (and James Taylor). Pretty sure the IPCC didn't mean "every year winter everywhere will uniformly have less snow". EVIL CORRUPT SCIENTISTS aren't as stupid as you apparently think.

barfo