Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Net overall increase in surface temperatures by .51°C"? What are you talking about? That doesn't make sense.
Of course it makes sense. The temperature has not increased each and every year. There have been some years where the mean surface temperature has dropped. Between 1880 and 2011 NASA's GISS reported a total overall increase in mean surface temperature of 0.85°C, and a total over decrease in mean surface temperature of 0.34°C. Resulting in a net increase in surface temperature of 0.51°C over the last 131 years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceist
The NASA GISS graph shows surface temperature anomalies not absolute temperatures. It is showing that 2010 was .51°C. above the average mean global surface temperature of the base period. (GISS uses the 3 decades 1951-1980 as the base period).
They are not "anomalies" they are changes in the mean surface temperature from the previous year. NASA's GISS data is from 1880 to 2011. Sometimes the mean surface temperature increases, sometimes it decreases. Overall, however, there has been a net increase of 0.51°C over the last 131 years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceist
The NASA GISS graph does not show the actual surface temperatures between 1880 and 2010. It shows the differences in the period 1880-2010 from the base period of 1951-1980. You can't just take that figure of .51, pretend it's a net figure, and divide it by 13 (number of decades from 1880 to 2010) and get .039 as an 'average change per decade'. It makes absolutely no sense. It shows you don't even know what the graphs mean.
See above. The graph is the difference in the mean temperature from year to year. You can also download the raw data from NASA, which does include the specific temperature from over 300 different locations. However, the purpose of the graph is to show the change in the mean temperature, and you can divide 0.51°C by 13.1 to determine the average increase/decrease in temperature per decade. That is precisely what the IPCC AR5 report does, only they are using bogus data that did not originate with NASA, despite their claims to the contrary. Using the IPCC bogus data, temperatures would have had to increase by 1.24°C over the last 131 years. NASA says the mean surface temperature was 2.4 times lower than what the IPCC AR5 is reporting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceist
The IPCC is NOT misrepresenting the data, you are.
The IPCC is flat out lying. I am posting both sources, which they will not do. If you believe NASA's data, then you cannot believe the IPCC. If you believe the IPCC, then you cannot believe NASA. You cannot have it both ways. Since the data varies by more than 2.4 times, one or the other has to be deliberately lying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceist
You can find an explanation of what temperature anomalies are, and why and how they are used, here:
You should also have noticed that Table 2.4 shows 3 other data sets from different sources and the figures are all very similar to the GISS data.
Since when is a change in temperature an "anomaly?" Apparently you do not have a clue what "anomaly" means.
anomaly:
the angular distance of a planet from its perihelion as seen from the sun
deviation from the common rule : irregularity
something anomalous : something different, abnormal, peculiar, or not easily classified
Just because the temperature changes does not make it an aberrant or an anomalous event. In fact, if the temperature did not change, then that would be an anomaly.
The IPCC AR5 report deliberately misrepresents the data they cite in order to push their government control and wealth distribution scam. Since they cannot accurately represent the data NASA has provided, then all of the data they cite is suspect.
The fact that Global Warming Alarmists cannot be honest proves beyond any doubt that AGW is nothing more than a complete scam.
The GISTEMP analysis concerns only temperature anomalies, not absolute temperature. Temperature anomalies are computed relative to the base period 1951-1980. The reason to work with anomalies, rather than absolute temperature is that absolute temperature varies markedly in short distances, while monthly or annual temperature anomalies are representative of a much larger region. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/abs_temp.html
Scientists say it is crucial to avert that two-degree temperature rise because beyond it the risks of high-impact changes—such as melting of the Greenland ice sheet—could become unacceptably high. At the current rate of emissions, the U.N. suggests that two-degree mark will be breached sooner rather than later. U.N. Climate Change Report Says Worst Scenarios Can Still Be Avoided - WSJ.com
Every prediction Global Warming Alarmists have made in the last 100 years has been flat out wrong. Why should anyone believe the latest "doom & gloom" prediction?
Have you never heard of the story of the boy who cried wolf?
Do you take seriously those who stand on street corners with signs claiming "the end of the world is nigh?" So far they have been right just as often as the IPCC and other Global Warming religious fanatics.
I just finished checking your claim that NASA and IPCC data do not agree...There is no truth to that statement at all, so why would I believe anything else you claim?
Every prediction Global Warming Alarmists have made in the last 100 years has been flat out wrong. Why should anyone believe the latest "doom & gloom" prediction?
Have you never heard of the story of the boy who cried wolf?
Do you take seriously those who stand on street corners with signs claiming "the end of the world is nigh?" So far they have been right just as often as the IPCC and other Global Warming religious fanatics.
You are comparing nut jobs with cardboard signs to climate scientists? Really? I'll go with the science, thank you.
Debating climate change deniers is generally about as useful as debating young-Earth creationists. They have no evidence on their side, but that doesn’t seem to worry them in the slightest. Given that these people managed to go through school without picking up even a modicum of scientific theory, it seems pointless trying to lecture them.
You are comparing nut jobs with cardboard signs to climate scientists? Really? I'll go with the science, thank you.
They have exactly the same track record with their predictions. Which demonstrates that Global Warming is obviously a religion to you, and not science. Only those who believe in a religion can believe in "doom & gloom" predictions that are always wrong. The religious nut standing on a street corner with a sign that reads "repent for the end of the world is nigh" is an exact representation of what Global Warming religious fanatics have become, and they are just as credible.
They have exactly the same track record with their predictions.
Uh, actually, given that the cardboard sign people have said that the climate scientists are wrong, they have a better track record with their predictions than the climate scientists. I mean, if we're being accurate.
Uh, actually, given that the cardboard sign people have said that the climate scientists are wrong, they have a better track record with their predictions than the climate scientists. I mean, if we're being accurate.
I have not seen any with signs claiming climate scientists were wrong, but I have seen plenty predicting the end of the world. Although, not as many bogus predictions as the Global Warming religious fanatics have made.
Also, in all fairness, the data scientists are collecting is being deliberately misrepresented by politicians to suit their ideology, so I do not hold scientists responsible. I have absolutely no problem with the data NASA has collected in their GIS Survey. I have seen their raw data, and I have a high degree of confidence in the data that they are presenting. I cannot say the same thing about the IPCC AR5 report, which is full of errors and in no way represents the data they claim came from NASA or other sources. Which would explain why only 13 out of 1,117 (1.2%) of the scientists who participated in the IPCC AR5 report support the ridiculous claims being made.
I have not seen any with signs claiming climate scientists were wrong, but I have seen plenty predicting the end of the world. Although, not as many bogus predictions as the Global Warming religious fanatics have made.
Also, in all fairness, the data scientists are collecting is being deliberately misrepresented by politicians to suit their ideology, so I do not hold scientists responsible. I have absolutely no problem with the data NASA has collected in their GIS Survey. I have seen their raw data, and I have a high degree of confidence in the data that they are presenting. I cannot say the same thing about the IPCC AR5 report, which is full of errors and in no way represents the data they claim came from NASA or other sources. Which would explain why only 13 out of 1,117 (1.2%) of the scientists who participated in the IPCC AR5 report support the ridiculous claims being made.
If there is a “scientific debate” why do only 24 out of 13,950 peer-reviewed papers (that’s 0.17%) dispute man-made climate change?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
