Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Monday, December 01, 2014

No Global Warming for 17 Years!

-
That's right, besides the blip in 1998 due to a strong El Niño, global warming has stopped even though CO2 has been steadily increasing. Just take a looksie at the NOAA Global temps from 1880-now. We are only .74 degrees C above some arbitrary norm and if you look from 1997 until 2014 there isn't any indication of any thermal runaway and the trend is flat. Using 1997 as a bench mark there were only 5 years that were warmer, with the warmest being 0.1 degree C. 12 years were cooler.

 Heck look back to 1977 and 2014 is only .66 degrees C warmer than 27 years ago and 1992 is the same as 1977! The difference between 1997 and 2014 is a mere 0.1 degree C. 

 Greenhouse gases do not warm the earth they just keep the atmosphere warmer longer- think the desert effect in which it is hot during the day yet very cool at night because there isn't enough water vapor to help keep the atmosphere warm. IOW it seems that greenhouse gases just allow for warmer nights, which is a good thing for agriculture.

 Greenhouse gases do not amplify the heat they absorb. That means they do not heat the earth. They just allow the heat to not escape as fast as it would without them so that the earth says warmer during the night.

posted by Joe G @ 7:05 AM  

103 Comments:

  • At 3:30 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    You link to "anomaly" not temperature, but no matter. for the whole data set you linked to, linear regression shows an increase of 0.006 degrees per year with an adjusted R squared of 0.69. If we just look from 1997 we get 0.011 degrees per year with an adjusted R squared of 0.26.

    So you're wrong.

    Hopefully this helps you, Joe:
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Escalator_2012_500.gif

     

  • At 4:44 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    BWAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    0.011 degrees- only an anal retentive cupcake would think that means warming has occurred especially given the error margin, urban heat islands and the fact that CO2 has steadily increased, which, according to you chicken-littles, should have had a more profound effect than that.

    BTW, a realist would look at the graph the way it is without trying to make something out of it. The realist would see that 2009 was just as cold as it was in the 1970s. A realist would say if CO2 is increasing then we shouldn't have those dips if CO2 actually means something wrt climate. Then a realist would say there is much more at play than CO2 and besides plants need CO2 and we need plants.

     

  • At 5:04 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Realist" seems to be Joetalk for "subjective innumerate". I actually did the math, something IDists don't like to do - the numbers are objective.

    A polynomial trendline fits even better ( R Squared of 0.76, show accelerating warming)

    " plants need CO2 and we need plants" - have they been starving for CO2?

     

  • At 6:16 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    LoL! "Realist" in cupcake talk is someone who cannot see the forest because the trees are in the way.

    Richie didn't do any math- it is a given someone did it for him.

    Accelerated warming of 0.011 degrees per year! Pedal to the metal boys! And it's accelerating except in the years where it is cooler than the last...

     

  • At 6:38 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    You never did math at school, did you?

     

  • At 9:28 PM, Blogger Eugen said…


    What's going on, nobody is doing cyber Monday shopping?

    Anyway, about agriculture. Climate alarmist forget to mention that Romans used to grow olive trees in Rhine valley and citrus trees as far as the Hadrian Wall during Roman Warming Period.

     

  • At 5:25 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Richie thinks that global temperature is a real thing.



    BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

     

  • At 5:27 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Eugen, Yes there have been times when it was warmer than it is today. But that doesn't matter- LoL!

     

  • At 12:56 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22global+temperature%22&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C14&as_sdtp=

    Poor old Chubbers, wrong about everything. I guess you can be a fridge repairman and not understand temperature.

     

  • At 6:18 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What an imbecile!!!!!111!!1!!!!!

    Just cuz people can talk as if there is such a thing that doesn't make t so, cupcake. At best "global temperature" is a theoretical concept. Satellites have helped but they are rather recent.

    Weather patterns change. That causes regional climates to change. The urban heat island effect is real.

    The point being the Earth is NOT in thermodynamic equilibrium. Jedi mind tricks with statistics won't change that.

    What do the averages mean in terms of physics, you know seeing that the averages are not physical, Rich?

    dumbass

     

  • At 6:24 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Here is another one for you to choke on- the atmosphere is not a homogenous system.

     

  • At 7:31 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    Joe: "At best "global temperature" is a theoretical concept."

    What's wrong with theoretical concepts? Temperature in general is also a theoretical concept. As are energy, momentum, length, and so on. Theoretical concepts are used to build physical models, which are tested against experimental observations. There is nothing wrong with theoretical concepts.

    Joe: "What do the averages mean in terms of physics, you know seeing that the averages are not physical, Rich?"

    Why are averages unphysical? What exactly do you mean by that? Lots of successful physical theories operate with the notion of average. For example, in thermodynamics and statistical physics, the energy of a system fluctuates because it is in thermal contact with other systems. Nonetheless, the theory makes specific predictions about the average value of energy, which is then compared to experimental observations. And you know what? It works. Nothing unphysical about that!

     

  • At 7:50 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What's wrong with theoretical concepts?

    Nothing if they can be mapped to reality. And global temps cannot be.

    Temperature in general is also a theoretical concept.

    That is your opinion and only an opinion. I say it can be measured which means it is a physical thing. Duh.

    Why are averages unphysical?

    They are a mental construct.

    Fact- the earth is not at thermodynamic equilibrium. Fact the atmosphere is not homogeneous. Those two facts alone tell us that global temperature is a farce.

    Strange that you didn't understand that.

     

  • At 8:07 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    Joe: "Nothing if they can be mapped to reality. And global temps cannot be."

    Here is an example of mapping temperature to reality. I look out the window and observe that my thermometer shows 38°F this morning. I can map this to reality by putting on a jacket as I head out the door.

    Here is an example of mapping an average temperature to reality. According to this webpage, the cold season in Baltimore lasts from December 2 to March 2 with an average daily high temperature below 50°F. I know that my heating bill is going to be lower than in Boston, where the corresponding figure is 45°F.

    So yes, both instantaneous and average temperatures can be mapped to reality.

    Joe: "They are a mental construct."

    Being a mental construct does not make a concept unphysical. Energy is a mental construct. So is temperature. So is average temperature. They are all physical quantities.

    Joe: "Fact- the earth is not at thermodynamic equilibrium. Fact the atmosphere is not homogeneous. Those two facts alone tell us that global temperature is a farce."

    Fact: a person is not in thermal equilibrium. Fact: a person's temperature is not homogeneous (inner temperature is higher than that of skin). Nonetheless, one cannot say on the basis of that that a temperature measured by a medical thermometer is a farce. It is, in fact, a useful measure!

    Try harder, Joe!

     

  • At 8:15 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Here is an example of mapping an average temperature to reality. According to this webpage, the cold season in Baltimore lasts from December 2 to March 2 with an average daily high temperature below 50°F. I know that my heating bill is going to be lower than in Boston, where the corresponding figure is 45°F.

    And this relates to global averages, how?

    Energy is a mental construct.

    No, it isn't.

    Fact: a person is not in thermal equilibrium.

    Yet we do produce a REAL and measurable body temperature.

    No one has said how the alleged global temperature is useful. No one can say that it is even a real thing. Unlike body temperature it cannot be measured. For example it doesn't even take winds into account.

     

  • At 8:23 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    The relation is quite simple: both the global average and the monthly average are (wait for it!) averages! Both are calculated, rather than measured directly. Both are useful quantities, in similar ways. (Parenthetically, it isn't the global temperature that people talk about, it's the global temperature anomaly. Do you understand what that means?)

     

  • At 8:28 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    Joe: "Yet we do produce a REAL and measurable body temperature."

    Which body temperature? Temperature can be measured at different points and the readings will differ. Here is what WebMD says:

    * The average normal oral temperature is 98.6°F (37°C).
    * A rectal temperature is 0.5°F (0.3°C) to 1°F (0.6°C) higher than an oral temperature.
    * An ear (tympanic) temperature is 0.5°F (0.3°C) to 1°F (0.6°C) higher than an oral temperature.
    * An armpit (axillary) temperature is usually 0.5°F (0.3°C) to 1°F (0.6°C) lower than an oral temperature.
    * A forehead (temporal) scanner is usually 0.5°F (0.3°C) to 1°F (0.6°C) lower than an oral temperature.

    See, body temperature is not homogeneous! By your logic, it is a farce! :)

     

  • At 8:46 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Body temps can be directly measured. Global temps cannot be.

    You lose, again.

     

  • At 8:52 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Here is an example of mapping an average temperature to reality. According to this webpage, the cold season in Baltimore lasts from December 2 to March 2 with an average daily high temperature below 50°F. I know that my heating bill is going to be lower than in Boston, where the corresponding figure is 45°F.

    Not necessarily. That all depends on the type of house and the insulation it has.

     

  • At 8:54 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    No one (except you) is talking about a global temperature, Joe. The term is the global temperature anomaly. Do you understand the difference?

    If you do, I have the next question. Is temperature anomaly (local, not global) directly measurable?

     

  • At 8:57 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    No one (except you) is talking about a global temperature, Joe.

    Liar

    The term is the global temperature anomaly.

    LoL! How can one measure the alleged anomaly without first calculating the global temperature?

     

  • At 8:58 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    No one said it didn't. The above is valid, other things being equal.

    That indicated that average temperature can be a useful concept.

     

  • At 9:00 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    Elementary, Watson! You calculate local anomalies first and then average them. Never occurred to you?

     

  • At 9:10 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You calculate local anomalies first and then average them.

    You can't do that without the temperatures. Never occurred to you?

     

  • At 9:12 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The above is valid, other things being equal.

    LoL!

    That indicated that average temperature can be a useful concept.

    Local averages, maybe.

     

  • At 9:12 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    Joe: "LoL! How can one measure the alleged anomaly without first calculating the global temperature?"

    I suppose this is not your position anymore? :)

     

  • At 9:14 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "LoL! How can one measure the alleged anomaly without first calculating the global temperature?"

    I suppose this is not your position anymore?

    OK so it cannot be done. That is what I thought.

    So what was your point?

     

  • At 9:17 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    Joe: "Local averages, maybe."

    Great! You have now acknowledged that average temperatures, which are not measured directly, can be mapped to reality. Very good.

    Here is an example of a non-local (i.e., global) average that can be mapped to reality.

    Take two glasses filled with water. The water temperature is 50 degrees Fahrenheit in one, 52 degrees in the other. The average temperature of water in the two glasses is 51 degrees. How can we map it to reality?

    Elementary. If we combine the water from the two glasses, the temperature of the resulting body of water will be 51 degrees. So the average temperature (not local this time!) is grounded in reality.

     

  • At 9:19 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    Joe: "LoL! How can one measure the alleged anomaly without first calculating the global temperature? OK so it cannot be done. That is what I thought."

    You are patently wrong. The global temperature anomaly is determined without calculating "the global temperature." It is computed from local anomalies.

    Look it up, Joe.

     

  • At 9:20 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    oleg, you cannot tell if there is an anomaly without the actual temperature.

    What is wrong with you?

     

  • At 9:22 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You have now acknowledged that average temperatures, which are not measured directly, can be mapped to reality.

    Not really. Preparing for 45 degrees will not prepare you for 10 degrees. And reality says 10 degrees is a common occurrence in Boston winters.

     

  • At 9:23 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    You are moving the goal posts, Joe.

    First you said: "How can one measure the alleged anomaly without first calculating the global temperature?"

    Then you said: "OK so it cannot be done. That is what I thought."

    Now you are saying: "you cannot tell if there is an anomaly without the actual temperature."

    Acknowledge that you were wrong about the global temperature anomaly. It isn't calculated from "the global temperature."

     

  • At 9:24 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    Joe: "Not really. Preparing for 45 degrees will not prepare you for 10 degrees. And reality says 10 degrees is a common occurrence in Boston winters."

    That's pretty stupid. Knowing the average temperature does not tell you anything about temperature fluctuations. It's like complaining that measuring the body temperature does not tell you about blood pressure. :)

     

  • At 9:27 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "How can one measure the alleged anomaly without first calculating the global temperature?"

    It is true.

    "you cannot tell if there is an anomaly without the actual temperature."

    Also true.

     

  • At 9:28 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Knowing the average temperature does not tell you anything about temperature fluctuations.

    That is why the concept isn't useful, oleg. Duh.

     

  • At 9:29 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    The first one is patently false. Global anomaly is calculated by averaging local anomalies. No global temperature is computed. Look it up.

     

  • At 9:31 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    Lol. Measuring body temperature does not tell us anything about blood pressure. That is why the concept is not useful.

     

  • At 3:29 PM, Blogger William Spearshake said…

    Joe suffers from the same condition that all creationists do. They are OK with small things that are easy to measure, and can't be denied, (e.g., local temperature and microevolution) but do not have the reasoning capability to understand large things that are more difficult to measure (e.g., average global temperatures and macroevolution).

     

  • At 4:15 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Measuring body temperature does not tell us anything about blood pressure.

    OK

    That is why the concept is not useful.

    Thankfully you are not an MD and hopefully you don't care for anyone but yourself.

     

  • At 4:20 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Global anomaly is calculated by averaging local anomalies.

    And how do we figure out local anomalies? My bet is by temperature measurements.

    Are you saying that we can't take the average of the local temps and get the same result? Or are you saying that calculating the average of all local anomalies is patently different from calculating the averages of the local anomalies, which were gleaned from the actual temperatures?

     

  • At 4:24 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    LoL! @ the sock puppet- no one can measure macroevolution. No one knows where to start and no one knows if such a thing is even possible.

    And "global temperature" is a myth, just like the theory of evolution- they exist only in the minds of the extremely gullible.

     

  • At 5:31 PM, Blogger William Spearshake said…

    Macro evolution is measured in many ways. The fossil record in conjunction with radio metric dating; molecular studies; etc.

    Global warming is a fact. The only questions are the extent to which humans are responsible and what the implications are. There is even a theory that it could trigger an ice age. The models predict a higher increase than we are seeing, but still within the uncertainty estimates. Things like volcanic activity and shifting ocean currents impact climate and, therefore, the accuracy of any model.

     

  • At 6:20 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Macro evolution is measured in many ways. The fossil record in conjunction with radio metric dating; molecular studies; etc.

    All bullshit, of course. No one knows what makes an organism what it is. And of all the known microevolutionary events not one can be used to extrapolate macroevolution. The genes for microevolution are different from those that can produce macroevolutionary change:

    Loci that are obviously variable within natural populations do not seem to lie at the basis of many major adaptive changes, while those loci that seemingly do constitute the foundation of many if not most major adaptive changes are not variable.- John McDonald, “The Molecular Basis of Adaptation: A Critical Review of Relevant Ideas and Observation”, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics: 14, 1983, p77-102

    The climate changes- weather patterns also change. That is what they do. And humans have always prospered during the warmer eras, so I will take the warmth, even if it is undetectable to a human. I take that back- last summer was one of the coldest summers I can remember- our garden barely produced.

    And yeah global warming predicts run away heat and an ice age- more hurricanes and extreme weather or fewer hurricanes and less extreme weather.

    It predicts that some years will be as cool as it was 40 years ago and some will be a warmer than that.

    Gotta luv it

     

  • At 7:19 PM, Blogger William Spearshake said…

    Joe, what do you think about this:

    http://m.therepublic.com/view/story/e6b51314e0a74a78a77035237e6073e1/KS--Science-Standards-Lawsuit

    The bigger question is why the complaint argued that teaching about climate change and evolution was a violation of religious freedom. Are they admitting that the opposition to these are a religious issue and not a science one? It certainly looks this way.

     

  • At 7:42 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    It looks to me that they are saying that atheism is being pushed under the guise of science.

     

  • At 8:44 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Can anyone tell me how there can be a global temperature anomaly without a global temperature?

     

  • At 9:24 PM, Blogger William Spearshake said…

    There are easily measured local average temperatures. It is the monthly or annual differences from these averages that are used. You can plot the global average of these average anomalies without having a global temperature. I would think that a person with s 150 IQ could easily grasp this concept. But I forgot. An IQ is a measure of an anomaly from an average.

     

  • At 5:54 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    No dumbass- if you have a global TEMPERATURE anomaly you HAVE to have a global TEMPERATURE and that is regardless of how you arrived at that global TEMPERATURE anomaly.

    Are you saying that we can't take the average of the local temps and get the same result? Or are you saying that calculating the average of all local anomalies is patently different from calculating the averages of the local anomalies, which were gleaned from the actual temperatures?

    Fucking morons...

     

  • At 6:00 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The global temperature anomaly is an anomaly of- wait for it- the global temperature.

     

  • At 7:18 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    Joe: "Can anyone tell me how there can be a global temperature anomaly without a global temperature?"

    Joe: "The global temperature anomaly is an anomaly of- wait for it- the global temperature."

    and so on...

    NASA GISS FAQ: "Temperature anomalies indicate how much warmer or colder it is than normal for a particular place and time."

    NASA GISS FAQ: "Note that regional mean anomalies (in particular global anomalies) are not computed from the current absolute mean and the 1951-80 mean for that region, but from station temperature anomalies..."

    In other words, the global temperature anomaly is computed by averaging local temperature anomalies.

    The simple way to make sense of this is to remembed that climate scientists define the global temperature anomaly as {global {temperature anomaly}} and not {{global temperature} anomaly}.

    I know nested sets might be a problem in these parts, but most people understand what the above means.

     

  • At 7:24 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Temperature anomalies indicate how much warmer or colder it is than normal for a particular place and time."

    Warmer and colder pertain to temperature. And the earth is a place

    "Note that regional mean anomalies (in particular global anomalies) are not computed from the current absolute mean and the 1951-80 mean for that region, but from station temperature anomalies..."

    Right can't have a temperature anomaly without the temperature

    In other words, the global temperature anomaly is computed by averaging local temperature anomalies.

    And you cannot have a temperature anomaly without the temperature.

    AGAIN if you have a global TEMPERATURE anomaly you HAVE to have a global TEMPERATURE and that is regardless of how you arrived at that global TEMPERATURE anomaly.

    Are you saying that we can't take the average of the local temps and get the same result? Or are you saying that calculating the average of all local anomalies is patently different from calculating the averages of the local anomalies, which were gleaned from the actual temperatures?

    Most people know what all of that means...

     

  • At 7:27 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    Joe, read the NASA GISS FAQ. If you have questions after that, feel free to ask.

     

  • At 8:33 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    oleg, It looks like you have an "average of all local temperature anomalies" and not a global temperature anomaly. And thank you for avoiding our questions. We understand why you would.

     

  • At 8:38 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    If "anomaly" means deviation from the norm then you have to know the norm in order to know if there is a deviation or not.

    Or does it work differently in oleg world?

     

  • At 8:51 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    Joe, global refers to averaging. What is being averaged is temperature anomalies. That is how the term is defined and used. Period. End of story.

     

  • At 9:03 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Joe, global refers to averaging.

    What? Global warming means that the average global temperature is rising.

    By your logic we have the average average temperature is rising.

    Really?

     

  • At 9:20 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    No, an increasing global temperature anomaly is an indication that temperatures are on the rise, on average. Some places get warmer, some colder, but the places warming up outnumber the places cooling down.

     

  • At 9:46 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    No, an increasing global temperature anomaly is an indication that temperatures are on the rise, on average.

    No, global pertains to the Earth.



    Which is why global, as in Earth, warming is a misnomer.

     

  • At 10:39 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    Yes, global means "all of the Earth." That's the same as averaged over all locations on Earth.

     

  • At 10:52 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So there is a global temperature then

     

  • At 11:24 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    There would be if people averaged over local temperatures. But, as the GISS FAQ explains, that isn't done. Instead, people average local temperature anomalies.

     

  • At 3:10 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Poor old chubs. Can't even get a trend line right.

     

  • At 6:11 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    oleg, you are daft as one cannot have an anomaly without having the temperature.

     

  • At 6:11 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Poor cupcake, can't even see that there hasn't been any warming in over 17 years

     

  • At 7:16 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Hey cupcake:

    Onward Marches the Great Pause:

    "Since October 1996 there has been no global warming at all (Fig. 1)."

     

  • At 7:46 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    Joe: "oleg, you are daft as one cannot have an anomaly without having the temperature."

    Local anomaly is defined as local temperature minus its value averaged over 30 years. This definition does require the notion of local temperature.

    Global anomaly is defined as the local anomalies averaged over the Earth. (See GISS FAQ.) This definition does not require the notion of global temperature.

    Is this hard to understand?

     

  • At 7:48 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    Symbolically, global temperature anomaly = {global {temperature anomaly}}, not {{global temperature} anomaly}.

     

  • At 7:58 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Umm you cannot know whether or not there is an anomaly if you do not know what the norm is.

    Is that difficult to understand?

    It looks like you have an "average of all local temperature anomalies" and not a global temperature anomaly

    Is that difficult to understand?

    AGAIN if you have a global TEMPERATURE anomaly you HAVE to have a global TEMPERATURE and that is regardless of how you arrived at that global TEMPERATURE anomaly.
    Is that difficult to understand?

    Or are you saying that we can't take the average of the local temps and get the same result? Or are you saying that calculating the average of all local temperatures to get a global temperature is patently different from calculating the averages of the local anomalies to get a global anomaly, which were gleaned from the actual local temperatures so they should be able to provide a global temperature?

    Or is that too difficult for you to understand?



     

  • At 8:04 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    Joe: "It looks like you have an "average of all local temperature anomalies" and not a global temperature anomaly"

    That is how the global temperature anomaly is defined. It is the average of all local temperature anomalies. See GISS FAQ.

    No one gives a flying fuck about your linguistic confusion, Joe.

     

  • At 8:21 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    LoL! oleg the fucking coward thinks his cowardice means something.

    That is how the global temperature anomaly is defined. It is the average of all local temperature anomalies. See GISS FAQ.

    Then they are changing the definition to suit their agenda. And we understand why you are OK with that.

    It looks like the linguistic confusion is all yours. And we don't give a flying fuck definition of "global" to suit their agenda. And I understand why that s OK with you.



     

  • At 8:28 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    Joe, no one has changed the definition. This is how the global temperature anomaly has always been defined.

     

  • At 10:56 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    No oleg, obviously someone changed the definition of "global" in the "global temperature anomaly" as it isn't global

     

  • At 11:04 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    Of course it's global. Global {temperature anomaly} = {temperature anomaly} averaged over the entire globe. This is the current definition.

     

  • At 12:17 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    1- There aren't local stations over the entire globe

    2- All anomalies are in comparison to some norm.

    3- You cannot have an anomaly without a norm

    4- If you have an anomaly then you have a norm

    5- If you have a global temperature anomaly then you have a global temperature norm

    6- Urban heat island effect is real

     

  • At 12:24 PM, Blogger oleg said…

    Joe, the term "global temperature anomaly" is well defined. You thought it was calculated from a "global temperature." That isn't the case. It is calculated from local temperature anomalies.

    I have cited an authoritative source (NASA GISS). You have only offered us your own linguistic quibbles.

    See if anyone cares.

    On the bright side, you have learned what the global temperature anomaly is.

    There is nothing wrong about being mistaken. Your mistake was typical of people who know little about climate science. Now you know more.

    So pick up things and move on. Don't remain stuck on stupid. No one calculates the global temperature anomaly from a "global temperature." Everyone (who is not a complete novice) knows how the term is defined. There is no point in arguing about definitions. Just use the commonly accepted, and completely noncontroversial, term.

    :)

     

  • At 12:56 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Joe, the term "global temperature anomaly" is well defined.

    By redefining the word global.

    You thought it was calculated from a "global temperature."

    And you appear to be saying that it cannot be.

    That isn't the case. It is calculated from local temperature anomalies.

    Six of one, half-dozen of the other.

    On the bright side, you have learned what the global temperature anomaly is.

    I learned that quite some time ago , after I learned that all anomalies are compared with some norm. It isn't any different with the global temperature anomaly. You can't have one with a global temperature norm. And once you have that then the global temperature follows from the anomaly. Duh.

    No one calculates the global temperature anomaly from a "global temperature."

    You cannot have a global temperature anomaly without a global temperature norm.

    Everyone (who is not a complete novice) knows how the term is defined.

    Yes, by redefining a word it contains.

    But I see that you are stuck on stupid...

     

  • At 1:01 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    A. Temperature anomalies indicate how much warmer or colder it is than normal for a particular place and time.

    Warmer or colder refer to some base TEMPERATURE. The earth is a place and it changes with time.

    For the GISS analysis, normal always means the average over the 30-year period 1951-1980 for that place and time of year.

    The average TEMPERATURE

     

  • At 2:01 PM, Blogger oleg said…

    By a place, of course, GISS means a particular meteorological station. Not the entire Earth.

    So temperature anomaly is defined locally. And then the global temperature anomaly is calculated by averaging over local temperature anomalies. Very simple, really.

     

  • At 4:30 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The earth is a place and you cannot have an anomaly without a norm. Very, very simple, really.

     

  • At 6:21 PM, Blogger oleg said…

    Sorry, Joe, there is no meteorological station called Earth.

     

  • At 9:01 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And that is why here isn't any "global" warming. As you said, and the evidence indicates, some regions are warming and other regions are cooling. It's just that there have been more years that the warming slightly outpaced the cooling than years in which the cooling has outpaced the warming.

    If CO2 is the factor the alarmists make it out to be and it is constantly increasing, the alleged global temperature anomaly should increase.

    So the real global temperature anomaly is why isn't that what we are seeing? The pause is an anomaly and I am sick of it, mainly because it may be an indication of a coming cool period. And THAT scares me more than warming.

     

  • At 10:40 PM, Blogger oleg said…

    Joe: "As you said, and the evidence indicates, some regions are warming and other regions are cooling. It's just that there have been more years that the warming slightly outpaced the cooling than years in which the cooling has outpaced the warming. "

    I disagree. If you look back a few decades, the regions that have since warmed up are much more numerous than the regions that have cooled down. The effect is thus global.

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=3&type=anoms&mean_gen=10&year1=2014&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=1200&pol=rob

     

  • At 8:48 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I disagree. If you look back a few decades, the regions that have since warmed up are much more numerous than the regions that have cooled down.

    You disagree and then agree. Strange. Do you have the evidence for your claim? Please present it so we can see exactly which regions are warming and which are cooling. And it looks like it is all regional. You cannot make it global.

    Your link was for ONE month.

     

  • At 8:51 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    What are you trying to say, Joe? Do you disagree that the trend is overwhelmingly warming (few cooling spots) on the scale of decades? That's what the graph shows.

    As to one month, feel free to provide graphs for other times.

     

  • At 8:53 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What trend? There hasn't been any warming in over 17 years!

     

  • At 8:58 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    Read more carefully, Joe. I wrote "on the scale of decades." The graph I linked to compares local temperatures in 2014 to those 35-60 years ago.

     

  • At 9:01 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    LoL! That one month of 2014 had some warmer regions than decades ago.

    35+ years ago my parents had gardens that produced during the summers.This summer our garden didn't produce because it was too cold. And the USA has summer snow for the first time since the 19th century.

    Go figure...

     

  • At 9:12 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    Joe: "LoL! That one month of 2014 had some warmer regions than decades ago."

    Wrong! That graph shows that local temperatures have gone up almost everywhere, with a few exceptions!

    And it's not just for one month in 2014. Here is the data comparing 1951-1980 to 2004-2014: http://goo.gl/bN3O5o. Same result. Regions that have warmed up strongly dominate!

     

  • At 9:14 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    oleg, the first link was just for one month, October 2014. And 2009 was as cool as it was back in the 1970s.

    Oops

     

  • At 9:16 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    Well, the second isn't. It compares (for those who didn't get it the first time) 1951-1980 to 2004-2014. The last decade was warmer over most of the globe.

     

  • At 8:50 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The last decade was warmer over most of the globe.

    And yet there hasn't been any warming for over 17 years

     

  • At 9:42 AM, Blogger The whole truth said…

    joey, is "temperature" information? If so, is temperature only information to humans?

     

  • At 10:37 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    No, dickface, temperature is data.

     

  • At 10:54 AM, Blogger The whole truth said…

    So, joey, temperature is not information and has no meaning to humans or anything else?

     

  • At 11:29 AM, Blogger The whole truth said…

    Why won't you post my other questions, joey?

     

  • At 11:50 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I usually don't post your shit-spewing rants because they are shit-spewing rants from an ignorant coward.

     

  • At 11:52 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So, joey, temperature is not information and has no meaning to humans or anything else?

    So, dickface, you are a demented little cowardly shit-spewer. Please tell us how you jumped all the way to your ignorant question from what I posted. I dare you

     

  • At 11:55 AM, Blogger The whole truth said…

    Why won't you just answer my questions, joey? What are you afraid of?

     

  • At 11:56 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And while you are here please link to or reference this alleged "theory of evolution" that you found last year (ie when you were ten).

     

  • At 11:59 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Why won't you just answer my questions, joey?

    As I have told you, all you have are ignorant spewings of a shit-eating coward. I don't respond to that. If you ever have something relevant and something that demonstrates just a little honesty and some knowledge, I will respond.

    That said, you want to make this personal so just tell me where you live and we can get this over with.

     

  • At 7:53 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OK so the impish TWiT shows up here, spews its usual bullshit and refuses to support it. Not only that it still refuses to link to the alleged theory of evolution which it has claimed to have found.

    Total and complete cowardice from a proven pathological liar. At least we understand its need for anonymity.

     

  • At 8:40 AM, Blogger The whole truth said…

    So, joey, you block my comments, and I'm a coward? Who do you think you're fooling, besides yourself?

    You're the one running away, as usual.

     

  • At 9:22 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    LoL! You are a coward because you are an anonymous asshole who doesn't know anything except how to be a belligerent little fuckhead.

    You are a coward because you can't even ask relevant questions, you lie and you refuse to defend your lame position.

    What am I running from?

     

Post a Comment

<< Home