Let's step back from the model-based predictions and assume their is a consensus that global warming is real and man made what can really be done about it? Nations are abandoning the over hyped UN Kyoto protocol in droves. Gore has been pushing a similar cap and trade legislation as far back as 1988 and I'm sure everyone will be shocked when I tell you he's a big investor in Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX).

First of all, I doubt they used the '50-'80 average to come to a conclusion. They probably used it to illustrate the data in a manner that would be easy to understand. As was just covered, the coming to a conclusion part is much more complicated than simply taking two numbers and subtracting them from each other. My guess is that the '50 - '80 average was a good, relatively recent but not too recent time period from which to compare how much has changed in the last 36 years.


I have to say, though, that for someone who doesn't seem to have a very strong understanding of data analysis, let alone climate science (and I don't mean that as an insult. Most people are no different), it seems like kind of an odd yet specific question.

Are you asking out of pure curiosity? Or are you angling for some sort of point you are trying to make?

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

The title says "This July was the hottest month since records began" that is a definitive statement. It's an odd and specific question because it's an odd and specific part of the article in how they came to their conclusion. I am asking out of curiosity and it doesn't make sense to me. "NASA calculated that July 2016 was 0.84 degrees Celsius (1.51 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than the 1950-1980 global average"

Whats wrong with 1981 through 2015? What about before 1950? Since records began? How does the evolution of global temp. recording effect this kind of calculation and it's accuracy? In 1950 were they taking the same number of readings the same way with the same instruments and accuracy accross the globe as they are today? If you were saying it was the highest or lowest recorded temp in a city for a given day or average for a given month that seems much more clear and easier to get an accurate idea with less confounding factors then the whole globe.

Whats wrong with 1981 through 2015?

Nothing. Feel free to run the numbers and see if it changes any of the conclusions. It won't.

What about before 1950? Since records began?

Sure, but those numbers will be less meaningful, as the high-quality instrumental record is generally reckoned to start post-WWII.

How does the evolution of global temp. recording effect this kind of calculation and it's accuracy?

It affects it strongly! I hate to bring up what is a sore subject for some, but take a look at the error bars on the infamous hockey stick graph. The error bars for the last few decades are a tiny fraction of the error bars for global mean surface temperature estimates from, say, 200 years ago. Not to mention those from 1000 years ago that are based on reconstructions from paleoclimatic data.

In 1950 were they taking the same number of readings the same way with the same instruments and accuracy accross the globe as they are today?

Not quite, no. But the density of the observational network and the quality of the data are comparable. If you go back before WWII, there are far fewer stations and the data are less reliable.

If you were saying it was the highest or lowest recorded temp in a city for a given day or average for a given month that seems much more clear and easier to get an accurate idea with less confounding factors then the whole globe.

What would that tell you about whether the Earth is warming?

There is so much that is so wrong with your post. For one:


You are confusing weather with climate. If you care to look, specific records for cities are kept, and specific temps for countries like the USA are also available. They say little about average global temperature. It would be easier, but it would be wrong.

"Hottest month" and ".84 degrees warmer" have nothing to do with each other.

The first statement tells you that its the hottest month.

The second statement is used to illustrate how hot it is.



This is an example of the catch 22 that deniers create in order to perpetuate cognitive dissonance. You won't accept anything if the answer is simplified enough for you to understand, and you won't accept anything that you don't understand.

If you *really* want to know the answer, there's plenty of literature on the subject out there.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

 I'm not confusing anything and I wasn't talking about global warming nor am I a "denier" I just had questions about the article. I'm making the point how one could say with accuracy it was the hottest/coldest day on record for a given city on a given day but I'm not seeing how the headline could state.


This July was the hottest month since records began

It could say this is hotter than any July between 1950 and 1980. I asked why and BarryP said take his word or crunch the numbers it won't make a difference.

Not a very good answer.... why wouldn't an additional 35 years of accurate temp. readings not make a difference? Maybe it would still be the hottest month maybe it would be more or less than .84 degrees and why wouldn't NASA use it. They would have to do the calculations anyway to see that it did or didn't make a difference.

The title also gives the impression since it says records began that it is the hottest July in hundreds of years not since there was reliable comparative global temp. data to make that assertion.

I don't know the specific answer, Norm, because I spend 8 hours a day doing my OWN data analysis, not theirs. And when I do it, I sometimes make statements exactly like the one you are referring to, because it illustrates a point to be made. "Look here at how our hardware is performing. Compare that to how it was performing between 2000 and 2005." Why would I say something like that? Because its an easy way to get my point across to a room full of people who want to understand the scope of the issue, but don't want to spend an hour having me explain it to them.

No, I don't know why he picked those specific years, but the fact that he did isn't anything significant. If you think he's hiding something, go look at the data yourself:




That's sort of the point. The data is available to *everyone* and it is scrutinized by plenty of scientists. They aren't used car salesmen trying to sneak something past you with tricky language.

Good grief, its 2016.......why are we still having this debate??!!!!

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Here is a text table going back to 1880. There are ways to glean data further back, but the results aren't as quantitative.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

Good grief, its 2016.......why are we still having this debate??!!!!

Same reason that Trump has 40% or so of the countries vote. Well not that much really, back out the hold your nose crowd and die hard republicans, probably about 30%. Those people believe anything he says( which is weird because he argues both sides of an issue) and he tells them it is all a hoax. That is a large number of believers in the hoax theory, so thus the debate continues. They just don't know it is won already..

Not a very good answer.... why wouldn't an additional 35 years of accurate temp. readings not make a difference? Maybe it would still be the hottest month maybe it would be more or less than .84 degrees and why wouldn't NASA use it. They would have to do the calculations anyway to see that it did or didn't make a difference.

They're just comparing to a somewhat arbitrary baseline. Don't get too hung up on this - it doesn't really make any difference in the interpretation.

The title also gives the impression since it says records began that it is the hottest July in hundreds of years not since there was reliable comparative global temp. data to make that assertion.

The reliable instrumental temperature record only goes back to the mid-late 1800's. This is the hottest July in that time. It's also the hottest July in 2,000 years or more but that was not the point of the article.

What debate? I had some specific questions about a specific article and was looking for some clarification instead I'm getting pilloried. It's been stated or intimated that I'm a denier, stupid and a Trump supporter.

The real irony is that you are the sole commenter in the LR that isn't here for the debate.

Edit: evidently

Your questions don't sound like questions of curiosity. They sound more like a passive aggressive ploy with an attempt to discredit the article. The concept of an "arbitrary baseline" (as someone else put it) used to illustrate a point shouldn't be difficult for you to understand, yet you keep pressing.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

What debate?

My response was not directed at your personally, just in general the faux debate going on..

I'm here for the debate. But I don't have any counter information to debate whether July 2016 was the hottest month ever.

YOu just better hope that Feburary 2017 doesn't break any records for heat, wouldn't want it to affect the favorite in the Super Bowl's performance…Unless of course you are betting against the favorite..(-;

Hey, just for keeping the data straight... I believe my record with you is W1- L2. That's how you remember it, right?

Just looked back at my email log here, looks like we have been betting for 4 years now. And it looks to me like I'm 4-0, or maybe we missed a year and 3-0? If I did loose one year, I cannot for the life of me find the email that has your address in it, do you have it? 2013, 2015, and 2016 wins for sure, 2014 is my ?..

You didn't watch the X-Files reboot did you?

---

"The great pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do."