July Makes 15 Record Hot Months in a Row

[A.J.]

in the 70's it was global cooling... i was there during all of the hoopla.... i mean we could go tit for tat here as i have documentation that shows the earth cooling......

I remember that, too, Wheeze. We were slowly moving into another ice age...

And THAT'S my main reason for poo-pooing global warming.

[Colonel]

in the 70's it was global cooling... i was there during all of the hoopla.... i mean we could go tit for tat here as i have documentation that shows the earth cooling......

If we look at the data they have at this link :

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-se...d/12/1880-2016

then the temperature dropped about 0.8 degrees F globally from 1945-1957. Public reaction tends to arrive years after the data so it would make sense that they went into a frenzy about that a decade or so later and even by 1977 the temperature was quite low compared to in 1945. Or maybe they were using more local data from North America which is uninteresting compared to global data, as an ice age by nature relies on a global phenomenon. But this would be a matter of ignoring everything before 1945 since 1945 represents a local peak.
From the data, the temperature has risen almost 3 degrees F globally from 1910 to 2016 and most of that since about 1980. That is a much larger increase over a much longer interval of time than anything that could be used to promote global cooling during the 1970s. The global cooling was a matter of projecting current trends into the future and they do the same with global warming today. But where the data showed nothing severe in terms of cooling in the absence of any projecting, the data per 2016 shows a pretty severe increase, an unprecedented high. Prophecies given by scientists 20 years ago about the temperature continuing to rise are shown to be truthful by data of today, just the increase hasn't been up to the rate prophecied. The question is where it will end and what the effect will be, and that is a matter of projection. But the data is what it is.

[Colonel]

Here is corresponding data for land temperatures in North America :

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-se...d/12/1880-2016

There is a local low in 1973 but the data up until that isn't particularly clear and using that to promote global cooling is still a matter of being America-centric which is stupid since North America is a very tiny part of the world's surface and has little to no effect on global phenomena like ice ages, which the data at the previous link has more of a bearing on.

[wheeze]

Here is corresponding data for land temperatures in North America :

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-se...d/12/1880-2016

There is a local low in 1973 but the data up until that isn't particularly clear and using that to promote global cooling is still a matter of being America-centric which is stupid since North America is a very tiny part of the world's surface and has little to no effect on global phenomena like ice ages, which the data at the previous link has more of a bearing on.

like i said guy i could show you data that contradicts what you're showing but why? We'll just go back and forth and nothing is resolved..... you won't change my mind as climate change is a man made myth in order to control populations......

[wheeze]

by the way the NOAA has been known to fudge their numbers to push global crap warming....

[Colonel]

Show me that data then.

[Farm Truck]

It's no problem guys... the world will form a one world government and raise taxes so they can put together a program to stop "climate change"

The problem actually is this world is sick with sin and is buckling under the load of unrighteousness for which is was not created to host.

[njtom]

It look like we won't believe in global warming until it's too late to do anything about it.

[Colonel]

wheeze decided he was going to just put up a rumor that the data itself is bogus. And that he could produce data that would indicate global cooling during the seventies. I suggest that he produces that instead of calling it a stalemate based on his own assertions.

Not that I have any conclusions to offer on this topic. I only have observations concerning data that I will assume is genuine until someone proves otherwise.

[wheeze]

Who am I to not accept a challenge.....

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...emperature-re/

"The U.S. government is at it again, hyping meaningless records in a parameter that does not exist in order to frighten us about something that doesn’t matter.

NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced this week that according to their calculations, July 2015 was the hottest month since instrumental records began in 1880. NOAA says that the record was set by eight one-hundredths of a degree Celsius over that set in July 1998. NASA calculates that July 2015 beat what they assert was the previous warmest month (July 2011) by two one-hundredths of a degree.

But government spokespeople rarely mention the inconvenient fact that these records are being set by less than the uncertainty in the statistics. NOAA claims an uncertainty of 14 one-hundredths of a degree in its temperature averages, or near twice the amount by which they say the record was set. NASA says that their data is typically accurate to one tenth of a degree, five times the amount by which their new record was set. So, the new temperature records are meaningless. Neither agency knows whether a record was set.

Such misrepresentations are now commonplace in NOAA and NASA announcements. They are regularly proclaiming monthly and yearly records set by less than the uncertainties in the measurements. Scientists within the agencies know that this is dishonest.

They also know that calculating so-called global average temperatures to hundredths of a degree is irrational. After all, there is very little data for the 70 percent of Earth’s surface that is ocean. There is also little data for mountainous and desert regions, not to mention the Antarctic. Much of the coverage is so sparse that NASA is forced to make the ridiculous claim that regions are adequately covered if there is a temperature-sensing station within nearly 750 miles. This is the distance between Ottawa, Canada, and Myrtle Beach, S.C. cities with very different climates. Yet, according to NASA, only one temperature sensing station is necessary for the two cities and the vast area between them to be adequately represented in their network."