Grey Skies, Nothing But Grey Skies..

[butlers 259]

The 134f from 1913 is disputed .

You posted the greening stuff before, what's that got to do with the globe getting warmer.

Last year was the joint hottest on record.

 

The 5 hottest years have all happened in the last decade.

Can't you see there is a trend.

Same way as you posted Texas had record cold ( for a week) this year, why is it that hot weather records are being broken twice as often as cool ones in the US.

.

 

 

Edited June 19, 2021 by butlers

[trastrick 866]

Just now, butlers said:

The  134 f is widely disregarded as non standard.

You posted the greening stuff before, what's that got to do with the globe getting warmer.

Last year was the joint hottest on record.

 

The 5 hottest years have all happened in the last decade.

Can't you see there is a trend.

Same way as you posted Texas had record cold ( for a week) this year, why is it that hot weather records are being broken twice as often as cool ones in the US.

 

Non Standard?  Perhaps you'll post a credible cite for that and I may agree with you.

 

Were the temperature records going back to 1890 (NASA) "non standard"?

 

What the global warming industry,  won't tell the sheeple is that their "records", are made by 100ths of a degree. The are reluctant to tell you what  the Earth's actual average temperature is, from year to year, but couch their findings in statistical comparisons, such as yours, above.

 

Butler

 

Last year was the joint hottest on record. The 5 hottest years have all happened in the last decade.

 

WMO

"The warmest six years have all been since 2015, with 2016, 2019 and ... Since the 1980s each decade has been warmer than the previous one. ... that next year will once again enter the series of the Earth's hottest years, ..."

 

Climate Central
 

"The warmest six years have all been since 2015, with 2016, 2019 and ... Since the 1980s each decade has been warmer than the previous one. ... that next year will once again enter the series of the Earth's hottest years, ..."

 

Climate Central

The global numbers are in, and 2019 was the 2nd warmest year on record—wrapping up the hottest decade ever recorded. The past five years have been the hottest five on record for the second year running.

 

NASA

Earth’s global average surface temperature in 2020 tied with 2016 as the warmest year on record, according to an analysis by NASA. Continuing the planet’s long-term warming trend, the year’s globally averaged temperature was 1.84 degrees Fahrenheit (1.02 degrees Celsius) warmer than the baseline 1951-1980 mean, according to scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. 2020 edged out 2016 by a very small amount, within the margin of error of the analysis, making the years effectively tied for the warmest year on record. "The last seven years have been the warmest seven years on record, typifying the ongoing and dramatic warming trend,” said GISS Director Gavin Schmidt. “Whether one year is a record or not is not really that important – the important things are long-term trends. With these trends, and as the human impact on the climate increases, we have to expect that records will continue to be broken.”

 

NOAA

It’s official: 2020 ranks as the second-hottest year on record for the planet, knocking 2019 down to third hottest, according to an analysis by NOAA scientists. The average land and ocean surface temperature across the globe in 2020 was 1.76 degrees F (0.98 of a degree C) above average — just 0.04 of a degree F (0.02 of a degree C) cooler than the 2016 record. The Northern Hemisphere saw its hottest year on record at 2.30 degrees F (1.28 degrees C) above the 20th-century average. 

 

NAT Geo

According to new reports published Wednesday, the last five years—from 2014 to 2018—are the warmest years ever recorded in the 139 years that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has tracked global heat. And 2018 was the fourth hottest year ever recorded. Global air temperatures have warmed steadily over past decades, shifting up and down slightly from year to year depending on natural climate oscillations like El Niño, but following a consistent upward path. Land temperatures, they said, were more than two degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the 20th century average.

 

And on and on it goes!

 

Now, all the comparative statistical jargon aside,  nowhere, nowhere, do they publish the actual average Earth temperature, for each year, going back for each year of observations.

 

It's obvious that these hundredths of a degree increases, in a generally warming world, (we are after all in a natural interglacial era) will produce "records" in the future, but by exactly by how much?

 

Could it be that their reluctance to post the empirical temperatures, is due to the obvious likelyhood, that giving actual temperatures, will contradict the "catastrophic man made global warming" meme they are promoting?

 

It's like having a football game analysed, but nobody tells you the actual score Lol

 

Why? Lol

 

Can anyone point to a simple list of earth's average yearly temperatures, over the satellite era, 42 years, instead of contrived comparisons with this decade, this century, or this year.

[butlers 259]

Like listening to a toddler having a tantrum, Lol

[trastrick 866]

And for me it's like trying to talk sense to Jehovas Witnesses.

 

Lol

 

But it's not a temper tantrum, it's pointing out the scam (follow the money) of the global warming "conventional wisdom".

 

e.g.

 

"These U.N. Climate Scientists Think They Can Halt Global Warming for $300 Billion. Here's How...."  Time Inc.

 

"Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal Could Cost $93,000,000.00" - Bloomberg.com 

[altus 533]

41 minutes ago, trastrick said:

Now, all the comparative statistical jargon aside,  nowhere, nowhere, do they publish the actual average Earth temperature, for each year, going back for each year of observations.

You didn't actually look for it did you?

 

Quote

Could it be that their reluctance to post the empirical temperatures, is due to the obvious likelyhood, that giving actual temperatures, will contradict the "catastrophic man made global warming" meme they are promoting?

The Met Office explain why they normally use anomalies rather than absolute temperatures.

Quote

The anomaly method also helps to avoid biases. For example, if actual temperatures were used and information from an Arctic observation station was missing for that month, it would mean the global temperature record would seem warmer. Using anomalies means missing data such as this will not bias the temperature record.

 

[trastrick 866]

26 minutes ago, altus said:

You didn't actually look for it did you?

 

The Met Office explain why they normally use anomalies rather than absolute temperatures.

 

Yes I did, but it involves reconstructing the data from different sources, and is discouraging to say the least.  If you could post a link to a site that has an updated year by year list of  actual Earth average temperatures, as measured by satellite, rather than the anomalies, I would be most grateful.

 

Speaking of anomalies, that was a cute bit of two step boogie you just engaged in, after I had to explain to you in a previous post why NOAA uses anomalies, instead of empirical data.

 

Lol

 

Anomalies are relational comparisons to averages of arbitrary timeframes, and show different results based on which time frame is used to determine the "average". They range from annual, decadal and century timeframes.

 

Edit of previous post.

 

"Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal Could Cost $93,000,000,000,000.00" - Bloomberg.com 

 

 

Edited June 19, 2021 by trastrick

[altus 533]

3 hours ago, trastrick said:

Yes I did, but it involves reconstructing the data from different sources, and is discouraging to say the least.  If you could post a link to a site that has an updated year by year list of  actual Earth average temperatures, as measured by satellite, rather than the anomalies, I would be most grateful.

They make the raw data is available - that alone make it nonsense to claim they are hiding the results. They also provide it in a partially processed form that is convenient for those in the field to use. If you don't like that then download the raw data and process it yourself. It's neither their job nor mine to process the data into the particular form you want.

Quote

Speaking of anomalies, that was a cute bit of two step boogie you just engaged in, after I had to explain to you in a previous post why NOAA uses anomalies, instead of empirical data.

No you didn't. At best you explained what anomalies are in this context. You also made some claims about why they provide the data in the form they do which are undermined by the fact they they make the raw data available.

[butlers 259]

Lost link

Edited June 19, 2021 by butlers

[trastrick 866]

1 hour ago, altus said:

They make the raw data is available - that alone make it nonsense to claim they are hiding the results. They also provide it in a partially processed form that is convenient for those in the field to use. If you don't like that then download the raw data and process it yourself. It's neither their job nor mine to process the data into the particular form you want.

No you didn't. At best you explained what anomalies are in this context. You also made some claims about why they provide the data in the form they do which are undermined by the fact they they make the raw data available.

"....the fact they they make the raw data available."

 

Ok Einstein.

 

Where is the raw data on the actual average Earth temperature over the 42 year satellite record? From NASA or NOAA?

 

I've been studying this for a long time and all I can find is raw data that shows the much discussed "anomalies". Comparisons, like those mentioned above.

 

Grasia!

[altus 533]

32 minutes ago, trastrick said:

"....the fact they they make the raw data available."

 

Ok Einstein.

 

Where is the raw data on the actual average Earth temperature over the 42 year satellite record? From NASA or NOAA?

 

I've been studying this for a long time and all I can find is raw data that shows the much discussed "anomalies". Comparisons, like those mentioned above.

 

Grasia!

I said they make the RAW data available, that is individual temperature measurements multiple times per day from thousands of points around the world, not the data processed how you'd like it to be. As I said, it's neither their job nor mine to provide you with the data in the form you'd like.

 

Alternatively, you could use a value from the chart of average temperatures on the page I linked to in post #89 to convert the other datasets of anomalies to temperatures.

[butlers 259]

Think it's 26,000 monitering stations.

Baring in mind the graph farrago ..more data is the last thing Trastrict needs 

Edited June 19, 2021 by butlers

[altus 533]

1 minute ago, butlers said:

Think it's 26,000 monitering stations.

Baring in mind the graph farrago ..more data is the last thing Trastrict needs 

That's why I suggested converting the anomaly datasets to temperatures - it's a lot less work.