From Michael Tobis. Mostly self-evident--the years are ranked hottest to coolest from left to right--but Michael glosses it as follows:Rather detracting from the value of the image is the fact that the vertical extent of the colored bars is not explained in any detail. It "feels like" some sort of uncertainty measure (older years indeed do have wider bars) but the source of the data and the analysis represented by the bars should be explained somewhere accessible from the page. It would be dramatcially more useful that way.
Plenty of global warming going on, and its not slowing down either.
13 comments:
1998 was warmer...Al Gore...socialists scheme...mars...thermometers next to KFC deep fryer vents...it's snowing today in Shitbucket Illinois...
It's all the hot sex those liberals and socialists are having.
With deniers, it's always "an ice age south of the border," (just look at a photo of any of them, and you'll know what I mean) so who can blame them for being skeptical?
First of all the actual temperature data itself is suspect. Secondly, the 'averaging' process used is not necessarily the correct one. Third, the sampling locations are completely inadequate for examining a 'global' issue. Fourth, the adjustments applied for the known biases were found to be inadequate. Unknown biases keep being discovered and have yet to be adjusted. Fifth, water temperatures are used instead of air over the oceans. There is no consistant direct correlation between ocean water and air temperatures. Sixth, "official" record temperatures have since been adjusted, but rarely get incorporated into a revised temperature picture.
And this doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of how CO2 and temperature AREN'T EVEN LINKED!!!
This is why arguing with you Kyoto Kool-Aid morons is so frustrating. You're too dumb to understand facts or understand that an uninformed opinion is worthless.
So if it is indeed represenative of a global temperature rise (which it isn't), why can it not be used as evidence that variable solar radiation is the cultprit instead of carbon dioxide?
Anony,
Could you please provide the journal citations that support your 7 assertions.
Thanks
First of all the actual temperature data itself is suspect.
How so?
Secondly, the 'averaging' process used is not necessarily the correct one.
How so?
Third, the sampling locations are completely inadequate for examining a 'global' issue.
How so?
Fourth, the adjustments applied for the known biases were found to be inadequate. Unknown biases keep being discovered and have yet to be adjusted.
How so?
Fifth, water temperatures are used instead of air over the oceans. There is no consistant direct correlation between ocean water and air temperatures.
That sounds like a lie...or only truthy, at beat. But anyway...
...How so?
Sixth, "official" record temperatures have since been adjusted, but rarely get incorporated into a revised temperature picture.
How so?
And this doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of how CO2 and temperature AREN'T EVEN LINKED!!!
Lie.
This is why arguing with you Kyoto Kool-Aid morons is so frustrating. You're too dumb to understand facts or understand that an uninformed opinion is worthless.
God, the irony...
Ok, 8 assertions. But it's really a rhetorical request, because we all know anony can't substantiate his assertions. That's why he's "anonymous".
I know the colours will keep ti-guy occupied for hours, but when the data is flawed, the conclusions you draw from it are just as worthless. You can't seem to pick up on this simple, obvious fact. The temperature data has been massaged and statistically altered to produce the results that you AGW believers want to see. Further, the connection to CO2 is that it LAGS temperature changes, not causes them.
It's funny that although the Sun imparts more energy onto the Earth's surface in one day than all the energy sources the planet uses in a year, you ignore that completely as a possible source for any temperature differentials.
"You can't seem to pick up on this simple, obvious fact. "
Please provide journal citations for this "obvious fact".
"It's funny that although the Sun imparts more energy onto the Earth's surface in one day than all the energy sources the planet uses in a year, you ignore that completely as a possible source for any temperature differentials."
Who ignores it completely, anony?
Certainly not the IPCC.
"Plenty of global warming going on, and its not slowing down either."
Nor is it caused by man.
No, no, no,
BCL is right,
they went back in time with a time machine as set up thousands of temperature monitoring stations, around the world,
and so now they can tell us with scientific certainty what the entire world's temperature was in
1942.
Heh.
BCL's drinkin from the AGW cool aid alright.
Is this why Al Gore is asking people to FLY from all over the world to Spain to listen to him and drink wine?
I would love to see the rest of that graph. You know, the other 4.5 billion years the earth has been around.
Post a Comment