October Smashes Temperature Records Practically Guaranteeing 2015 Will Be HottestYear

[AK-47]

They compared the stations to those nearby, do you really think that temperatures changes follow borders exactly?
Do you think what they did was dishonest?

I'm saying at the very least its very sloppy work and probably heavily influenced by their "conformation bias" that earth is warming.

Of course temperatures dont follow borders exactly, but they can (and do) fluctuate quite a bit even in very close together geographical areas. Take into account Paraguay is not that small of a country (its a bit smaller than California).

I'm just using this graph as a rough example, but look how temperatures can vary in a small area in Texas. I see anywhere from 107 F to 112 F, thats a full 5 degree difference.

Are you gonna tell me their all these thermometers need to be recalibrated as well??

 

[AK-47]

Here you go Frank, I just checked current temperatures in Paragay and surrounding countries.
Check for yourself: http://www.theweathernetwork.com/maps/current-weather/paraguay

It shows anywhere from 14 Celsius to 21 Celsius, thats a 7 degree difference

 

[Frankfooter]

Here you go Frank, I just checked current temperatures in Paragay and surrounding countries.
Check for yourself: http://www.theweathernetwork.com/maps/current-weather/paraguay

It shows anywhere from 14 Celsius to 21 Celsius, thats a 7 degree difference

You're missing the point.

The measurements generally agree with others in nearby countries, except in certain time periods.
Changes in weather stations happened quite often, to ignore them would make the results wrong.

Factcheck.org has an excellent summary on why Booker and his blogger source are wrong.
Read it.
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/02/nothing-false-about-temperature-data/

 

[AK-47]

You're missing the point.

The measurements generally agree with others in nearby countries, except in certain time periods.
Changes in weather stations happened quite often, to ignore them would make the results wrong

What you just wrote makes absolutely no sense.

Are trying to obfuscate??

 

[Frankfooter]

What you just wrote makes absolutely no sense.

Are trying to obfuscate??

Booker's accusation is that temperature records were all manipulated up, which he claims and claims that this shows it was deliberate tampering.
Except that he's wrong, some were adjusted up and some were adjusted down.

Here's a chart from a research paper on the issue, that tracked changes to thousands of monitoring stations.
Note that the dots are on either side of the zero temperature line, there were some stations adjusted up and some adjusted down.
Booker just picked three that only showed adjustments upward and ignored those that didn't fit his narrative.

That chart came from this paper.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011JD016187/full

 

[FAST]

They recalibrated by comparing Paraguay temperatures to weather stations from surrounding countries. This is not proper science, I'm sorry

Its NOT any kind of science,...its called creative accounting,...!!!

FAST

 

[FAST]

Booker's accusation is that temperature records were all manipulated up, which he claims and claims that this shows it was deliberate tampering.
Except that he's wrong, some were adjusted up and some were adjusted down.

Here's a chart from a research paper on the issue, that tracked changes to thousands of monitoring stations.
Note that the dots are on either side of the zero temperature line, there were some stations adjusted up and some adjusted down.
Booker just picked three that only showed adjustments upward and ignored those that didn't fit his narrative.

That chart came from this paper.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011JD016187/full

And the average deviation is,...and in what direction,...otherwise,...just another useless chart.

FAST

 

[Frankfooter]

And the average deviation is,...and in what direction,...otherwise,...just another useless chart.

FAST

Another useless post with only your useless opinion accompanied by useless and gratuitous punctuation.
You really don't have anything intelligent to add to this discussion, do you?

 

[FAST]

Another useless post with only your useless opinion accompanied by useless and gratuitous punctuation.
You really don't have anything intelligent to add to this discussion, do you?

Typical none response to a simple question,...
Unless the chart includes the result of the so called,..."re-calibration",...you know,...was the result the same as before the "re-calibration",...or was the result average higher,... or was the result lower.

What was the result of the so called,..."re-calibration",...???

Otherwise useless,...isn't it.

I keep reminding you that I have to leave pauses for YA,...otherwise you just go blank.

FAST

 

[AK-47]

Here's one of Phil Jones 2008 climategate emails, he says 243 (weather) stations needed adjustments, so clearly Met office has been adjusting more weather stations than just those ones in Paraguay

Read it for yourself: http://tomnelson.blogspot.ca/2011/11/phil-jones-2008-243-stations-needing.html

With 243 stations needing adjustments, and 728 used, I presume the other 485 were considered to be OK without adjustment.

FYI Phil Jones is a major player in the global warming movement

 

[Frankfooter]

Typical none response to a simple question,...
FAST

Oh, there was a question in the middle of that run on, weirdly punctuated sentence?
Must have missed it.

For those who can't read charts, that chart maps out the deviation of thousands of weather stations.
The middle horizontal line is the zero line, where the deviation didn't change the stations deviations.
The dots above that zero line represent stations that had their average temp increased after adjustments and the dots below represent stations that had their average temp decreased after adjustment.

Here's the chart, notice that there are about as many stations that were adjust up as there were down.
There was no malicious intent.

 

[Frankfooter]

Here's one of Phil Jones 2008 climategate emails, he says 243 (weather) stations needed adjustments, so clearly Met office has been adjusting more weather stations than just those ones in Paraguay

Check the chart above, each dot represents a station that was adjusted in some form.
Some went up and some went down, but pretty much equally.

Nothing of mal intent here, folks, just scientists trying to adjust for different measuring tools, station moves, different measuring techniques or anything else that can throw off a stations records.

 

[AK-47]

Check the chart above, each dot represents a station that was adjusted in some form.
Some went up and some went down, but pretty much equally.

Nothing of mal intent here, folks, just scientists trying to adjust for different measuring tools, station moves, different measuring techniques or anything else that can throw off a stations records

But then anyone can simply adjust it according to their own beliefs as to how much earth is warming (READ: confirmation bias)

 

[Frankfooter]

But then anyone can simply adjust it according to their own beliefs as to how much earth is warming (READ: confirmation bias)

The sources above all reported how much and what data they adjusted.
Which is how they could write the paper on the subject that produced the chart above.

But anyone who doesn't supply the full data, like most of the deniers and anyone posting at wattssupwiththat, for instance, is hiding something.

The legit climatologist publish their research in papers, where you can read about what they did and why the did it.
Which is how Booker found his three examples out of thousands of stations.

 

[AK-47]

Sorry Frank, but I'm still very skeptical of global warming.

And even if earth is warming up it sure isnt happening drastically.
Our winters have barely changed, and our summers havent changed much either.

You can come up with all the excuses and explanations that you want, but you figure with the last 100+ years of industrial revolution happening in the world, and its associated greenhouse gases, Toronto weather shouldve warmed up significantly and it hasnt.

Throw Climategate into the mix, and knowing what I know about human nature when it comes to bending the truth to keep their ideology and funding for that ideology going, and I become even more skeptical.

Global warming has now become a religion. Its not that far off from Islam IMO. Tell a muslim Allah might not be real and that his Koran might be 90% bullshit, and you will get approximately the same response I see in this thread from you.

But hey, I give you credit for at least sticking to your guns

 

[Moviefan-2]

Nope, just whining more won't help you.

Franky remains a total coward.

Meanwhile, his own graph confirmed the IPCC's predictions have been spectacularly wrong.

 

[Frankfooter]

You can come up with all the excuses and explanations that you want, but you figure with the last 100+ years of industrial revolution happening in the world, and its associated greenhouse gases, Toronto weather shouldve warmed up significantly and it hasnt.

It has changed, you just probably don't remember.

Here's proof.

 

[Frankfooter]

Franky remains a total coward.

Meanwhile, his own graph confirmed the IPCC's predictions have been spectacularly wrong.

You mean I'm a coward for not settling the bet earlier then the term, while you are ahead and despite the trends heading to you losing?
That's just another term you can't define correctly, isn't it?

Meanwhile the only thing we've confirmed is that you can't read a graph.

 

[Moviefan-2]

You mean I'm a coward for not settling the bet earlier then the term...

I can find plenty of posts where you agreed to settle early if we allowed you to use a different data set.

If you want to wait until the end of the year, then you should wait until the end of the year. But it's cowardice to keep trying to start a debate about the numbers when you're not ready to settle.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Meanwhile the only thing we've confirmed is that you can't read a graph.

Really?

In the graph you posted, I say there isn't a single year in the 21st century where the temperature anomaly intersects with the predicted temperature.

Are you saying I'm wrong?