Breaking Heat records all over by 10 degrees

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gothmog

Yes, and only recently have some of the ice sheets melted back enough to expose some of the mines and other settlements the early Viking colonists had established before they were driven off by the return of the deep freeze.

Of course, most people skip over how it was warmer during the Roman time period than it is now, but I doubt that was because the Romans were creating climate change. It was just naturally warmer.

It was not warmer during Roman times than it is today.

a reply to: Greven


Wrong again.


You can't answer my questions because the information isn't available. I wonder why.

They are legitimate questions and your frenzy to obfuscate any legitimate questions only reinforces my point.

You're doing a better job of proving my point than I am.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Greven


Wrong again.


You can't answer my questions because the information isn't available. I wonder why.

They are legitimate questions and your frenzy to obfuscate any legitimate questions only reinforces my point.

You're doing a better job of proving my point than I am.

I have no desire to answer your questions that would take countless hours to dredge up something you would ignore and toss aside anyway.

Do it yourself.

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gothmog

Yes, and only recently have some of the ice sheets melted back enough to expose some of the mines and other settlements the early Viking colonists had established before they were driven off by the return of the deep freeze.

Of course, most people skip over how it was warmer during the Roman time period than it is now, but I doubt that was because the Romans were creating climate change. It was just naturally warmer.

It was not warmer during Roman times than it is today.

Hmm.... I think you replied to the incorrect post.
But , since you did...
Who's chart is that ? Which numbers determined that chart ?
You have to take that into account.
Nonsense Climatologist ?
Biologist ?
Geologist ?
Historian ?

See , I do not just blindly believe something found randomly with a Google search .
Some folks do...

There are always factors...

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Greven


Wrong again.


You can't answer my questions because the information isn't available. I wonder why.

They are legitimate questions and your frenzy to obfuscate any legitimate questions only reinforces my point.

You're doing a better job of proving my point than I am.

I have no desire to answer your questions that would take countless hours to dredge up something you would ignore and toss aside anyway.

Do it yourself.

No one is that stupid.



You must be teasing me because I've clearly stated several times where I have looked and done due diligence, else I would not be so foolish as to ask the questions.

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gothmog

Yes, and only recently have some of the ice sheets melted back enough to expose some of the mines and other settlements the early Viking colonists had established before they were driven off by the return of the deep freeze.

Of course, most people skip over how it was warmer during the Roman time period than it is now, but I doubt that was because the Romans were creating climate change. It was just naturally warmer.

It was not warmer during Roman times than it is today.

Hmm.... I think you replied to the incorrect post.
But , since you did...
Who's chart is that ? Which numbers determined that chart ?
You have to take that into account.
Nonsense Climatologist ?
Biologist ?
Geologist ?
Historian ?

See , I do not just blindly believe something found randomly with a Google search .
Some folks do...

There are always factors...

It was the wrong image. I used the original image another member had posted and I expanded upon to refute their claim. It was some time ago, so I'm not exactly sure what post it was from.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Greven


Wrong again.


You can't answer my questions because the information isn't available. I wonder why.

They are legitimate questions and your frenzy to obfuscate any legitimate questions only reinforces my point.

You're doing a better job of proving my point than I am.

I have no desire to answer your questions that would take countless hours to dredge up something you would ignore and toss aside anyway.

Do it yourself.

No one is that stupid.

You must be teasing me because I've clearly stated several times where I have looked and done due diligence, else I would not be so foolish as to ask the questions.

Those 3 minutes you spent surely counted as 'looking' at spectrometers.

Not.

a reply to: Greven

Kitten?

I've spent days looking. I wouldn't have brought it up otherwise.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Greven

Kitten?

I've spent days looking. I wouldn't have brought it up otherwise.

How strange that as soon as I pointed to spectrometers (in a post TODAY), which are the basis for the graphs provided - even including the sources - you immediately demanded answers and now claim you spent days looking.

I frankly don't care. Go find the answers to the questions yourself.

a reply to: Greven

It goes beyond that.

What other equipment is in question?

My questions still stand.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Greven

It goes beyond that.

What other equipment is in question?

My questions still stand.

It doesn't, really.

Interferometers (e: perhaps some also use infrared / gas chromatography)

Spectrometers are used to measure CO2 content, O2 content, and were used on that satellite in 1970 to peer back towards the Earth. All three graphs are based on spectrometers.

Go forth and find your answers.

a reply to: Greven

Were variance studies done on the different generations of equipment?


Were calibrations done on any of the equipment?

If so, who did them and what controls were used?

Breaking a record means it could just break the record for one day. It could mean a high temperature hit for that particular day, or it could mean a high daily average hit for a particular day. It could mean a record was broken for any aspect of that day, the hottest temperature at eight oclock in the evening of that day can be used to call it a record breaking day.

That phrase record breaking is misused a lot by media. It could be a real hot beginning of July and be cool for the rest of the summer. You have to consider the average for the season and year to properly evaluate anything, not calling it breaking a record because it was a hot day with a cold day before and after. Everything breaks records nowadays, even our local TV stations started using that practice since it has become the norm now to use deception in the media.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Greven

Were variance studies done on the different generations of equipment?


Were calibrations done on any of the equipment?

If so, who did them and what controls were used?

You tell me, and explain why it matters.

a reply to: rickymouse

Breaking a record means it could just break the record for one day. It could mean a high temperature hit for that particular day, or it could mean a high daily average hit for a particular day. It could mean a record was broken for any aspect of that day, the hottest temperature at eight oclock in the evening of that day can be used to call it a record breaking day.

See this post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Blaine91555

Short term thinking.

Laters.

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Greven

Were variance studies done on the different generations of equipment?


Were calibrations done on any of the equipment?

If so, who did them and what controls were used?

You tell me, and explain why it matters.

So you don't think verifiable and accurate data matters.

pfft.

Like I said, it's your religion.

Dropping into the 50s F here....

Historically here are some numbers....

www.intellicast.com...


don't buy the Carbon Tax crowd just saying....

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Greven

Were variance studies done on the different generations of equipment?


Were calibrations done on any of the equipment?

If so, who did them and what controls were used?

You tell me, and explain why it matters.

So you don't think verifiable and accurate data matters.

pfft.

Like I said, it's your religion.

Stop projecting.

I didn't say that at all, I asked you to explain why it matters.

You know, to show all these non-engineers why it's so important, and how it's relevant to the physics involved.

a reply to: JacKatMtn

The thing is, the OPs situation (and yours) involves weather, not global averages, not climate.

Global warming does not mean everywhere will be hot. Nor does it mean nowhere will be cold.