April breaks global temperature record, marking seven months of new highs

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

The data being used are averages for a period of time (1 month, 4 months). If you are relying upon subjective reports it is very likely that people will make note of several days that are significantly cooler than average (like that 10º you used) and forget about the majority of days that were 2º-3º warmer than average.

Here's something else to consider:
In the last 365 days in the US there were 167 all time high temperature records set. While there were 7 all time low temperature records.

These are not daily records, not "the hotest April 14th ever." These are records being set. The hottest/coldest temperature recorded at a location.


Globally: 486 all time highs, 52 all time lows.

Doesn't seem to indicate cooling.



www.ncdc.noaa.gov...

a reply to: Phage

The problem is that the data used isn't always accurate. It's also, oftentimes, misrepresented. I have read reports of locations where temperatures were being taken being totally unsuitable, such as being located by an airfield, or a heating exhaust, or something of that nature. It's no secret that the GW crowd has been less than honest.

I watch the temps myself. I know others that do. It's not just a few days here and there; it's a lot of days, on a lot of years.

No wonder!!! We have two suns in the sky... The other one is getting closer and closer.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

I have read reports of locations where temperatures were being taken being totally unsuitable, such as being located by an airfield, or a heating exhaust, or something of that nature.

How many of them?
The thing is, stations in those locations (not sure about that next to heating exhaust one, that would be pretty silly) show pretty much the same increases as those in farm fields.

I watch the temps myself. I know others that do. It's not just a few days here and there; it's a lot of days, on a lot of years.

Do you record the temperatures? Can you say what your average temperature was for April 5 years ago?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

I have read reports of locations where temperatures were being taken being totally unsuitable, such as being located by an airfield, or a heating exhaust, or something of that nature.

How many of them?
The thing is, stations in those locations (not sure about that next to heating exhaust one, that would be pretty silly) show pretty much the same increases as those in farm fields.

I watch the temps myself. I know others that do. It's not just a few days here and there; it's a lot of days, on a lot of years.

Do you record the temperatures? Can you say what your average temperature was for April 5 years ago?

The report mentioned that more were in bad locations than were in good. This was some years ago. Would link, but lost the bookmarks with the old computer. If I can locate, will post a link later on. The locations were such that the temperatures would be artificially raised, making the data useless. The guy reporting said he was ignored when he commented on this.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

The guy reporting said he was ignored when he commented on this.

Apparently the guy reporting had no idea that such factors are taken into consideration when the data is analyzed.

This guy thought there was something screwy too. He checked it out.

CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming.

www.nytimes.com...

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

I have read reports of locations where temperatures were being taken being totally unsuitable, such as being located by an airfield, or a heating exhaust, or something of that nature.

How many of them?
The thing is, stations in those locations (not sure about that next to heating exhaust one, that would be pretty silly) show pretty much the same increases as those in farm fields.

I watch the temps myself. I know others that do. It's not just a few days here and there; it's a lot of days, on a lot of years.

Do you record the temperatures? Can you say what your average temperature was for April 5 years ago?

The report mentioned that more were in bad locations than were in good. This was some years ago. Would link, but lost the bookmarks with the old computer. If I can locate, will post a link later on. The locations were such that the temperatures would be artificially raised, making the data useless. The guy reporting said he was ignored when he commented on this.

Oh ya even when they have a lot of real information they also misrepresent it: The Arctic Ice is melting someone save the polar bears! Well how come they never talk about how Antarctica has been Gaining ice for the past 20 years and how and why that's happening? All their models say it shouldn't be happening. So yep when they pick and choose these like 5-10 areas and say ermurgurd this means the whole planet is hotter and the sky is falling! I call BS. Don't trust your lying eyes. Listen to us. You don't remember 5 years ago. You don't remember the weather for your entire life. Just trust our data. We're the government. We're here to help you.

a reply to: Phage

That guy isn't the same as the one whose comments I read. This fellow was someone who went around (maybe still does) actually collecting the data. Bit of a difference.

originally posted by: LordDraconia
Oh ya even when they have a lot of real information they also misrepresent it: The Arctic Ice is melting someone save the polar bears! Well how come they never talk about how Antarctica has been Gaining ice for the past 20 years and how and why that's happening? All their models say it shouldn't be happening. So yep when they pick and choose these like 5-10 areas and say ermurgurd this means the whole planet is hotter and the sky is falling! I call BS. Don't trust your lying eyes. Listen to us. You don't remember 5 years ago. You don't remember the weather for your entire life. Just trust our data. We're the government. We're here to help you.

That's exactly it! They also like to pretend that no one not with them can possibly understand anything, because, gee, we are all so stupid. Ignoring tons of data, and pushing other data, is what they do best. I heard a woman once claiming that global warming was responsible for problems in one area that were a clear result of deforestation. Instead of addressing a real problem, she preferred to use that to push an agenda. That shows that they aren't really concerned about solutions to real issues at all. More concerned about control, and scare tactics, than anything else!

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: Phage

The problem is that the data used isn't always accurate. It's also, oftentimes, misrepresented. I have read reports of locations where temperatures were being taken being totally unsuitable, such as being located by an airfield, or a heating exhaust, or something of that nature. It's no secret that the GW crowd has been less than honest.

I watch the temps myself. I know others that do. It's not just a few days here and there; it's a lot of days, on a lot of years.

wouldn't it be cool if a climate change skeptic was hired to look at the data and eliminate bias through random number crunching and eliminate all of the questionable locations ?

Imagine if someone was hired by the koch brothers to look for these faults and weaknesses and to testify in front of congress under oath what was really going on ? I mean it has to be the sun, right ?

well what do you know.....

the conversion of a skeptic

Berkeley Earth also has carefully studied issues raised by skeptics, such as possible biases from urban heating, data selection, poor station quality, and data adjustment. We have demonstrated that these do not unduly bias the results.

berkeley earth sumary of findings

press release

a reply to: syrinx high priest

Plenty of scientists have looked at he data, and plenty of misrepresented data and other falsification has been exposed. The whole GW thing is a farse; pseudoscience. Anyone looking at the facts can see this.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: mikell

Sorry about your feelings, but if you denounce good science in favor of theological bullstuff then you deserve to be called out. Ignorance and the acceptance of ignorant claims because they are buzzworthy and fullfil one's conginitive bias mindset is not acceptable.

What do you refer to as good science? It wouldn't be the hockey stick study by Michael Mann? Are you speaking of Climatology, sociology, geology or political science as good science. How about scatology? I can give you errors in each when referring to AGW. How about Criminology with deniers being prosecuted by the DOJ?

Where do most scientists work? How are they paid? Where does the research funds come from?

How is ISIS a result of AGW? Both Clinton, Sanders and the third democratic candidate all referred to this.

Let say for a moment that AGW is a fact. There is an inordinate amount of untrustworthy people pushing AGW that would only benefit and enrich themselves. What is the need to threaten incarceration for "deniers"?

My grandchildren tell me some of their teachers pushing AGW as fact. Why is there a need to indoctrinate our young on pseudoscience?

I have a reasonably good scientific education as does my wife and two of my three children. We just can't, in conscience, get on board with the present level of research on AGW theories. There are too many loose ends in your argument. There is too many cheerleaders, politicians and not enough independent scientists commenting.

so it hit 126 in india today

that's hot

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: syrinx high priest

Plenty of scientists have looked at he data, and plenty of misrepresented data and other falsification has been exposed. The whole GW thing is a farse; pseudoscience. Anyone looking at the facts can see this.

I see you didn't read it. the best part for me is this ;

“I was not expecting this,” says Richard Muller, “but as a scientist , I feel it is my duty to let the evidence change my mi nd .”

that shows integrity. I would recommend you take 25 minutes and carefully read what I posted

The people at NOAA are predicting that the second half of this year will have below normal temperature. It seems the the EL Nino is slowing down (less strong) for the remain portion of the year. If this is true, we will not have another record hot year but we will watch how truthful/ honest the AGW people are. So if 2016 is another record year they will be lying.

a reply to: buddah6

The people at NOAA are predicting that the second half of this year will have below normal temperature.

You made that up, didn't you?

Jul-Aug-Sep


Sept-Oct-Nov


Oct-Nov-DEC



www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov...

a reply to: buddah6

Nice rant full of looney questions that tells me that you have fallen fit the merchants of doubt propaganda and maybe unable to look at the actual data objectly. You clearly have a subjective opinion on the climate problem.

We are changing this planet's climate, there is no denying this reality. The real question is what can we do colectivelyt as a highly intelligent species in order to make the world a better place for future generations.

a reply to: jrod

highly intelligent species

You made that up right.

When we talk about the climate(and many other things), animals are smarter than humans.
The human species is far from intelligent, I yet have to see one example of intelligence in humans.

a reply to: intergalactic fire

Some of us are intelligent. It seems like intelligence is not hip but ignorance is celebrated and embraced throughout the US.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: intergalactic fire

Some of us are intelligent. It seems like intelligence is not hip but ignorance is celebrated and embraced throughout the US.

Sad, but true. Just a few post up this is espoused: "Plenty of scientists have looked at he data, and plenty of misrepresented data and other falsification has been exposed. The whole GW thing is a farse; pseudoscience. Anyone looking at the facts can see this." It's an "us against them" mentality that is rooted in 'visions', ideology, worldviews, religion, etc. For a great many, being reminded that your activities have nothing but a linear progression offends and scares people. AGW has it's alarmist problem (pulling a Chicken Little), lots of research/academic funding, and a prominent voice in the American conversation. There is a lot both sides of the issue could work on, but the science is settled with respect to man's influence on the greenhouse effect. Accepting that and avoiding issuing blame will go along way in helping coalesce Americans around the issue.

Sidebar: What's your take on Florida's governor and administration accepting the fact of medical cannabis in Florida come November?