Global Temperature Trend Update - August, 2010

Every month University of Alabama in Huntsville climatologists John Christy and Roy Spencer report the latest global temperature trends from satellite data. Below are the newest data updated through July, 2010.

The accompanying UAH press release notes:

Second hottest July on record as El Nino continues to fade

Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.14 C per decade

July temperatures (preliminary)

Global composite temp.: +0.49 C (about 0.88 degrees Fahrenheit) above 20-year average for July.

Northern Hemisphere: +0.63 C (about 1.13 degrees Fahrenheit) above 20-year average for July.

Southern Hemisphere: +0.34 C (about 0.58 degrees Fahrenheit) above 20-year average for July.

Tropics: +0.48 C (about 0.61 degrees Fahrenheit) above 20-year average for July.

June temperatures (revised):

Global Composite: +0.44 C above 20-year average

Northern Hemisphere: +0.55 C above 20-year average

Southern Hemisphere: +0.32 C above 20-year average

Tropics: +0.48 C above 20-year average

(All temperature anomalies are based on a 20-year average (1979-1998) for the month reported.)

Notes on data released Aug. 3, 2010:

July 2010 was the second hottest July in the 32-year satellite temperature dataset, with a global average temperature that was only 0.03 C cooler than the record set in July 1998, according to Dr. John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville.

July Temperature Anomalies
    Year  Mo  Degrees C
 1.  1998  7   +0.52
 2.  2010  7   +0.49
 3.  2009  7   +0.44
 4.  2005  7   +0.35
 5.  2002  7   +0.3
 6.  2007  7   +0.26
 7.  2006  7   +0.22
 8.  1991  7   +0.2
 9.  1988  7   +0.19
10.  2003  7   +0.18

Average temperatures for the globe, as well as the northern and southern hemispheres, went up in July despite the continued cooling of the El Nino Pacific Ocean warming event and the apparent transition to a La Nina Pacific Ocean cooling event.

"If you look at how much sea surface temperatures are falling, no one would have predicted this," Christy said.

July 2010 was the second hottest July globally and in the Northern Hemisphere; third hottest in the Southern Hemisphere; and fourth hottest in the tropics.

Compared to seasonal norms, July 2010 was also the 17th warmest of all of the months since the satellite temperature dataset began in December 1978.

Warmest months, global
    Year  Mth  Anomaly
 1.  1998   2   +0.76
 2.  1998   4   +0.76
 3.  2010   3   +0.66
 4.  1998   5   +0.65
 5.  2010   1   +0.64
 6.  2010   2   +0.61
 7.  1998   1   +0.58
 8.  1998   6   +0.57
 9.  2010   5   +0.54
10.  1998   3   +0.53
11.  1998   7   +0.52
12.  1998   8   +0.52
13.  2007   1   +0.51
14.  2009   9   +0.5
15.  2009  11   +0.5
16.  2010   4   +0.5
17.* 2010   7   +0.49
18.  2005  10   +0.47
19.  2005   4   +0.46
20.  1998   9   +0.45

The first seven months of 2010 were only 0.07 C (about 0.13 degrees Fahrenheit) cooler than the record set in 1998 during another El Nino Pacific Ocean warming event.

  Jan-July Temp Anomalies
            GL      NH      SH      TRP
1998  +0.62  +0.73  +0.51  +0.90
2010  +0.55  +0.74  +0.36  +0.63

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    "If you look at how much sea surface temperatures are falling, no one would have predicted this," Christy said.

    But . . . the models! The Settled Science!

    And I'm still looking at an El Nino that's not as hot as the last one. Is there any reason, BTW, that the 09-10 El Nino isn't labelled as such?

  • waffles||

    because it's getting hotter and calling it an El Nino just gives the deniers something to hang their hat on. We need to show this increased heat for what it is, a crisis. The skeptics won't last forever, the environmental movement IS FOREVER.

    We WILL overcome you deniers!

  • Yonemoto||

    Not only that but the last el nino was WORSE because it started lower.

    Also, did you notice that the "average" conveniently ends at 98, just before the el nino? A more honest average would have taken one in, so stopped at 2000

    On the other hand, where the hell are the '89 and '79 el ninos?

    What caused the cooling in '84. Looks way worse than the pinatubo one.

    Wasn't there also supposed to be tons of cooling after the oil well fires in Kuwait?? WTF.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Wasn't there also supposed to be tons of cooling after the oil well fires in Kuwait?? WTF.


    Carl Sagan predicted it, but there was an error in his calculations.

  • Carbon Trader||

    Who wants to buy some of my carbon credits? I'll promise not to be flatulent for an entire year. I'll even send you a realistically authentic document stating you've saved x carbon credits (depending on purchase).

    Share it with everybody. It's fun for the whole family!

  • Alice Bowie||

    You are Right.

    Global Warming is made up by Liberals and we should not interfere with business making money.

  • Mike Laursen||

    Right. Because heaven forbid we have a thriving economy where business could make money and people could have jobs.

  • Joe-not one of the recent ones||

    As a long term climax denier....

    Why a 20 year average? Sorry if this has been talke about before. First time i noticed it.

  • waffles||

    denying climaxes can lead to relationship problems. perhaps this is something you and your state-appointed caseworker can discuss.

  • ||

    He might be denying his own the first couple times around for the sake of extending performance duration, which I'm sure his wife appreciates.

  • ||

    Why a 20 year average?

    Because a 30 or 40 year average wouldn't produce "increases" across the board! Very scientific!

  • Chad||

    For one thing, a 40-year average would only be available through 1989.

  • ||

    Just-not: It has been talked about before, but what it's worth all of the temperature data sets have base periods. For example, the GISS data set beloved by those concerned about warming uses a base period of 1951-1980. The since the satellite data have only been available since 1979 that's as good as anyplace to start that base period.

  • ||

    The since the satellite data have only been available since 1979 that's as good as anyplace to start that base period.

    Oh, I thought that it was related to the cooling trend in the 70's. Just a coincidence, I see.

  • robc||

    I came in to bring this up yet again, but the zero line should be 79-current, not some arbitrary period.

  • robc||

    And yes, I realize this means adjusting that line every month, but so fucking what?

  • ||

    Cuz then you do not have a base that is the same every month to compare last month with.

    I think a trend line that changes every month would be nice.

    "Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.14 C per decade" is good and all but it would be even better in graph form.

  • Neu Mejican||

    robc,

    Given what they are graphing it would make no sense to re-adjust your baseline every month. Unless I am missing something.

  • robc||

    I dont know what they are graphing, Im assuming its temperature variation since satellite data began, so the zero line should be the average over the whole data set. The only other reasonable zero line would be "the optimal temperature of the Earth". I highly doubt the average of 79-98 corresponds with that.

  • ||

    Weather is not climate.

    This running post is a waste of electrons.

  • ||

    Yes it is. I am not even persuaded that you can even calculate such a thing as "global temperature". And you certainly can't tell jack shit from 31 years of data. But that is the only reliable source of data we have.

  • Fluffy||

    But - but - but - TREE RINGS!

  • Tim||

    Tree rings for the Elven Kings under the sky...

  • Mike Mann||

    But - but - but - TREE RINGS!

    Those are only good when you use the "trick" of deleting the ones that conflict with your conclusions.

  • EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy||

    John, you can---I repeat: can---compute a global mean temperature from the satellite data. It is not even hard.

    You can also do if from ground and sea based data, though that is rather harder. (And I still haven't found out if the data dump email numbered 1134526470 really implies that the CRU people were ad libbing the weights or not.)

    The difficulties lie in the interpretation of the result.

  • ||

    "The difficulties lie in the interpretation of the result."

    Well yes, you can compute something and call it global temperature. But is that in anyway reflective of the actual temperatures on earth? What does it even mean?

  • EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy||

    It is *precisely* reflective of the mean temperature of the atmosphere at [the land or sea surface|elevation xyz] over time period [t_1,t_2).

    All experimental observables are like that, and all non-trivial observable require some consideration in their interpretation.

    The problems facing climatelogy as a discipline right now include:

    * It is hard.
    * It is an interdisciplinary study, pulling from many more traditional specializations
    * Their historical data set is sparse, heterogeneous, and of sometime marginally reliability (and even then they some times have to guess at the reliability).
    * Their modern ground and sea based data sets are still sparse in places, heterogeneous, and have at least a few egregious quality control issues. I don't know what if anything is being done to address these, but it is a multi-jurisdictional problem issue, so it is non-trivial
    * They have had (and still have) a bit of a holy war going on, at least in part due to...
    * They are deeply mixed up in a politics, funding, and policy mire that makes it hard to feel confident that everybody is playing fair
    * There seem to be some conflicts of strong personalities among the leaders of the discipline results in bad behavior and exacerbating the appearance of Things To Hide (tm) [To be fair, this is common across a lot of science]

  • ||

    "Their modern ground and sea based data sets are still sparse in places, heterogeneous, and have at least a few egregious quality control issues. I don't know what if anything is being done to address these, but it is a multi-jurisdictional problem issue, so it is non-trivial"

    I think that is a massively under reported story. The state of ground temperature monitoring seems pretty sorry.

    I think they should do a collective approach. There are millions of weather geeks all over the world. You could collect a huge data set by setting up an interface where people enter the daily temperatures of where they were. You could then run some kind of a program on it where you threw out the outliers. And I bet you could come up with a great set of data.

    As for the rest of your post. All good points.

  • Fluffy||

    I think John's question [or at least mine] is:

    When you're talking about variations of less than a degree over time, isn't the data set too small if you don't have a measuring station basically every thousand yards or so?

    I can look at the weather map of the northeast and see temperature variations of three to six degrees from one town to the next, ON THE SAME DAY AT THE SAME TIME. So unless your data sample is "all air temperatures everywhere on Earth" how do you really know the mean temperature to the level of precision required to take about changes of 0.1 degree Celsius?

    That's why I mocked the tree rings. They obviously can tell you rough information about temperature changes over time. But changes of less than a degree? Is that like saying that because we have data that tells us that an asteroid strike created the K/T boundary, we know what day, hour and minute each individual dinosaur died?

  • EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy||

    There are two things going on here, but they both come down to measurement statistics.

    First: how many measurements do I need for precision X? The "uncertainty of the mean" goes by (typical uncertainty of 1 measurement)/sqrt(number of measurements). So 10,000 samples with a typical +/- 1 degree C gets you 0.01 for the uncertainty of the mean. That's not hard for the satellite data, and within reach of the ground data.

    Second: even so, can you fairly compare data point A against data point B when the data is clearly noisy? Probably not, but you can make global analysis of the data where the noise will cancel out. That is, I can reasonable fit a few parameter curve to the data presented here and attempt to draw conclusions from the results. The simplest example being fit a linear function to it and compare the slope with the uncertainty-in-the-slope to ascertain the significance of the trend.

    That still leaves you needing to interpreted the results, however.

  • Chad||

    I don't really think that is the best way to think about uncertainty. Often, the greatest uncertainty is not in your measurements, but in the assumptions and theory that converts your raw measurements into your desired metric.

    For example, I have been trying to measure a particular quantity at work the last few days. Using three independent analysis, I came up with values of 3.2 (+-.05), 4.3(+-.2), and 5.2(+-.3). Obviously, this is impossible. This problem is not going to be sorted out by repeating the measurements...they are what they are, and they are outside of each other's error ranges. The problem is that each measurement is based on assumptions that aren't quite true, and these errors are large enough to drive the three lines of reasoning to differing conclusions. This is what I will have to sort out in order to get the "right" answer, if I feel that "a little over four" isn't good enough for what I need.

    This is why I find it odd that conservatives are so fascinated by the satellite measurements, which have a very long (and debatable) chain of logic between the actual measurement (intensity of response in a microwave photon detector) and the quantity of interest (temperature in the distant troposphere). Thermometers have a much shorter and better-understood chain of logic, typically a change in resistance of a thermocouple that correlates tightly to temperature.

  • Mike Mann||

    Thermometers have a much shorter and better-understood chain of logic

    Yes with thermometers we can put them next to parking lots, airport runways and under air conditioners then average out the mountains, farm land and forests in between to get the numbers we want.

    That is what Hanson tells me anyway.

  • Chad||

    Too bad the data suggests otherwise. The UHI effect is small and easily accounted for.

    And isn't it odd that the strongest warming is occuring in the tundra...right next to all those Siberian metropolises.

  • Yonemoto||

    pray tell can I get the coefficients for each of those thermometer measurements that corrects for the amount of surface area that thermometer represents?

  • Chad||

    Each point on the map has its temperature determined by a weighted average of the nearest thermometers. Slight variations in how this calculation is done are the difference between HADCRU, GISS, Etc.

  • ||

    And how many thermometers do GISS, NCDC and CRU monitor in the polar regions?

  • EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy||

    These are the (simplified) correct approaches for managing the instrument and statistical error. They don't address either systematic issues or model dependencies, which also fold into the total.

    Fluffy asked about the number of measurements needed.

    And, Chad, he backbody radiation curve was known at the beginning of the 20th century and has been measured to high precision in dozens of contexts.

  • T||

    The question is whether a global mean temperature is useful for anything. If not, then it's just a math trick: "Look! We found an average!" I'm not convinced an average global temperature is particularly useful or significant. But I'm not a climatologist, so I could be wrong.

  • EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy||

    At a minimum it provides a gauge of how much energy it bound in the atmosphere at any given time. What can be done with this is beyond my small powers.

  • Jack||

    "Global temperature" has about as much scientific credibility as the national temperature index.

  • Jack Shit||

    Can't tell me what?

  • Zeb||

    And global average temperatures (whether such a concept is meaningful or not) is not weather.

  • EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy||

    Well, yeah. It's not necessarily even climate.

    But a significant trend in that figure would indicate that something was happening.

    * Is the current trend significant? Don't know, looks like a linear fit might have a non-zero slope at a sigma or two. Too bad the sample s so short.
    * Is that a problem? Don't know.
    * Is human activity a major driver? Might be.
    * Human cause or not, can we do something about it? Probably, but it won't be easy or cheep.
    * If we can, should we do something about it? Not a clue.

  • Jack||

    No, it's not. It has about as much credibility as the national temperature index.

    Just because you measure something doens't mean it's useful.

  • Apogee||

    From Here

    While Sea Surface Temperatures are cooling sharply as shown here, global surface temperature is still oscillating around 0.40 to 0.50C for the last four months. This is not surprising as the air temperature is strongly correlated with the SST but lags behind by about 3 months. Expect drops in the months ahead. – Anthony

  • Mike M.||

    The first seven months of 2010 were only 0.07 C (about 0.13 degrees Fahrenheit) cooler than the record set in 1998 during another El Nino Pacific Ocean warming event.

    Or, to phrase it in a slightly different way, there STILL has been absolutely no warming since 1998!

  • Chad||

    But there has been wild, out-of-control warming since both 97 and 99.

    Two out of three, I win, my cherry-pickin' friend!

    In any case, all of the other data sets show this year to be hotter than 1998, though not necessarily 2005. Why do you put your faith in satellite measurements, which are inferred indirectly and only through highly complex models that are hotly debated? Of course, you are using Christie's interpretation, which is the low-cooling one.

    Btw, here is a pro tip: never get into a cherry picking contest with someone who owns an orchard.

  • Apogee||

    ...satellite measurements, which are inferred indirectly and only through highly complex models that are hotly debated?

    But we all thought the science is settled. How can there be a debate?

    It's quite odd that anything that might call into question the 'warming' or the proper response (taxes) is somehow up for 'debate'.

  • ||

    When analyzing a seasonal or oscillating time series, trendlines can only be accurately measured from peak-to-peak, or from trough-to-trough.

    If I were to calculate for you a trend from the peak in 1998 to the trough in 2008, it wouldn't take much effort to show why the resulting regression line is an invalid measure.

  • Mike M.||

    In any case, all of the other data sets show this year to be hotter than 1998, though not necessarily 2005. Why do you put your faith in satellite measurements, which are inferred indirectly and only through highly complex models that are hotly debated? Of course, you are using Christie's interpretation, which is the low-cooling one.

    There are no other reliable temperature data sets left other than this one now. Don't you remember that your decline-hiding buddies at CRU destroyed them all?

  • ||

    "We've gotta protect our phoney-baloney research jobs, gentlemen, we must report something about climate immediately!"

  • ||

    I read somewhere, I forget where, about how the global warming industry is corrupting research into nearly everything. If I want to study the mating habits of red squirrels, I might have a hard time getting an NAS grant. But if I want to study global warming's impact on the mating habits of squirrels, I can get funding real easy. And if I come back with data that shows it is negatively impacting squirrels, I can get follow up money.

    So there is this huge built in incentive to link anything and everything to global warming.

  • Apogee||

    You read that right. Grants favor the warm.

  • Mike M.||

    Someone should apply for a research grant to study global warming's impact on venerable cosmotarian journals.

  • skr||

    I didn't get a harumph out of that guy!!

  • MNG||

    What's bizarre about this is that it seems to assume that grants come from some magical land of tree hugging druids.

    Grants come from governments and wealthy private entities. Why in the world would they fall over themselves to support research that would possibly be used to restrict wealth production? I mean, as we've said on an earlier post wealthy interest influence the government more than anyone else. But somehow they were outfoxed by an unstoppable juggernaut of a cabal of tree hugging druids?

    WTF?

  • ||

    Grants come from the government. And they come from private foundations, which are overwhelmingly run by liberals. Henry Ford may have been a cromagnon anti-Semitic conservative, but his foundation is totally left.

    Or to give another example

    The "Climate Initiative" is in turn part of the William J. Clinton Foundation, fast-becoming one of the richest foundations in the world. It is supported to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars by the likes of Bill Gates of Microsoft. Thanks not least to its involvement with climate change, it likes to boast that it has recently been named as one of the world's "Top 10 Green NGOs".

    http://eureferendum.blogspot.c.....d-and.html

    Here is an interesting article on the problem from 2008. Interestingly, it fingers the problems with the corruption of the peer review process that was later revealed in the climate gate e-mails.

    http://www.americanthinker.com.....al_wa.html

    Here is the slave holding tobacco making power company magnet created Doris Duke Foundation giving over a 100 million dollars to global warming research.

    http://www.todayscampus.com/articles/load.aspx?art=207

    Global warming is a funding bonanza.

  • ||

    You really don't know much do MNG? Seriously, is it news to you that most charitable and scientific foundations skew left?

    Your ignorance is really just astounding sometimes. I would be mad at you. But you don't seem to know any better.

  • Apogee||

    Why in the world would they fall over themselves to support research that would possibly be used to restrict wealth production?

    Not everybody's wealth production, just the unconnected.

  • Dick Fitzwell||

    Harumph!

  • ¢||

    You will meet an imperceptibly sweatier-than-usual stranger.

  • Fluffy||

    Bailey is SUCH a shill for Big Thermometer!

  • ||

    It's nothing I'm proud of and I still regret to this day Actually, it's nothing I'm proud of and I still regret to this day. But I digress. When I was 12, I told some of my friends that I thought I was gay. My one friend, Jessica, knew this gay 15 year old guy and showed him my picture. He thought I was cute. We talked for not even two days, and the next day, he came over. He started feeling my dick through my pants, and I felt his. I pulled down his pants, and he had this huge 9 inch boner. I sucked him off, then we did some jacking off to eachother. He did me up the ass for a bit. It REALLY hurt. I couldn't walk right for a few days, and it bled. Then we just jacked eachother off until we came. I felt so bad after that. Mainly because I find sex a mutual thing that you should do in a relationship. My one and only boyfriend dumped me for a girl he could show off to his friends.

    Dear Reason, Thats right. I admit it. I'm gay. I'm queer. I love the taste of another man's seed in my mouth and the feel of it shooting up my ass. Yeah. Deal with it. I now admit this cuz my one and only boyfriend dumped me for a girl he could show off to his friends. After I did so much for him! I've taken him in my mouth and ass so much I could have had 100 baybies if I was a girl. He said he loved me, but when the cance came he ran. I'm lonely /b/. And the only way to get over stuff like this is to fill the void with porn. Help me Reason.

  • ||

    You say that like there is something wrong with being queer or like I might actually not be so.

    You people are getting creepy.

  • Old Mexican||

    John,

    That's what I thought . . . lefties usually do the nastiest, ugliest things they accuse others of doing.

  • ||

    Good God, they even made a token effort at the genuine John misspelling. They did it badly.

    Whoever it is really should cut it out. Disagree with John all you want, post expletive-filled rants about his statism, but don't spoof him in a really unfunny way.

    That's pretty low.

  • waffles||

    that is definitely copypasta from /b/ and hence lowgrade trolling. probably not a lefty, just someone who thinks John is are delishus troll-fodder. Probably 18 years old or younger or the EQ of said age.

    Nothing to see here, move along.

  • Warty||

    Copypasta

    This is really weak shit, even by our troll standards. I'm embarrassed.

  • ▲ ▲||

    WTF? This has to be the most poorly constructed, lazy, stab-in-the-dark attempt of trolling I've ever seen. It's so bad it's not even worth trolling the troll by acting trolled.

    F-

  • Tacos mmm...||

    I'm lonely /b/.

    Unsuccessful troll is unsuccessful.

  • MNG||

    I like to eat poop.

  • ||

    Weak sauce. Porn better or GTFO.

  • bmp1701||

    Tits or GTFO.

  • ||

    ummm....

    This is a libertarian site.

    Why would we care if John was gay?

    At most we would shrug then post a joke about Shrike.

    Anyway for trolling john I think I would have him admit he was a Mexican.

  • ||

    It's nothing I'm proud of and I still regret to this day Actually, it's nothing I'm proud of and I still regret to this day. But I digress. When I was 12, I told some of my friends that I thought I was gay. My one friend, Jessica, knew this gay 15 year old guy and showed him my picture. He thought I was cute. We talked for not even two days, and the next day, he came over. He started feeling my dick through my pants, and I felt his. I pulled down his pants, and he had this huge 9 inch boner. I sucked him off, then we did some jacking off to eachother. He did me up the ass for a bit. It REALLY hurt. I couldn't walk right for a few days, and it bled. Then we just jacked eachother off until we came. I felt so bad after that. Mainly because I find sex a mutual thing that you should do in a relationship. My one and only boyfriend dumped me for a girl he could show off to his friends.

    Dear Reason, Thats right. I admit it. I'm gay. I'm queer. I love the taste of another man's seed in my mouth and the feel of it shooting up my ass. Yeah. Deal with it. I now admit this cuz my one and only boyfriend dumped me for a girl he could show off to his friends. After I did so much for him! I've taken him in my mouth and ass so much I could have had 100 baybies if I was a girl. He said he loved me, but when the cance came he ran. I'm lonely /b/. And the only way to get over stuff like this is to fill the void with porn. Help me Reason.

  • ||

    That's a whole lotta typing for an unfunny joke. And you posted it twice.

    What a maroon.

  • ||

    It's homophobic, a wall of text, and boring. It's a trifecta!

  • ||

    And, I'm pretty sure that's a verboten spoofing. Used John's email under the screen handle and everything.

  • Tim||

    Next up: Racist screed from leftist posing as a right wing racist.

  • ||

    I will say that nothing is funnier than supposed "progressives" (I'm assuming that whoever is pissed off enough at John to do this is a leftist) insulting their enemies with homophobic/misogynistic/racist/classist vituperation. The mask always slips.

  • ||

    Yeah. The irony of the whole thing is I don't think being called a homosexual is an insult.

  • ||

    But you are a fag, right? I think you've said you have a Harley.

    VROOOM VROOOM VROOOM

  • ||

    I don't have a Harley. I have worse. A BMW. I am like one of those Gay German anarchists in the Big Labowski.

  • Butts Wagner||

    Say what you will about the tenets of national socialism, dude, at least it’s an ethos

  • ||

    Nihilists

  • Cyto||

    I love this blog!

    - there, glad I got that off my chest...

  • ||

    YOU FUCKING FAGGOT RETARD. I made one of those posts and neither of the others. Stop pretending you are me or John, or actually know shit about anything. You are such a fucking idiot. I love it when stupid faggot little dipshits with tiny dinks like you do those "Same person" line-ups and are totally wrong. Suck my big hairy cock you pathetic know-nothing little queer bait. I'll make you wear a fucking dress. What a stupid fag you are. hard to believe. Fag.

  • ||

    D+. You're not very good at spoofing people's tone, are you. Well, you just keep at it--you'll get there some day.

  • Warty||

    Epi, I'll make you wear a fucking dress.

  • MNG||

    I think its pretty lame. People have an idea that liberals are like this tree hugging oversensitive caricature, and then when they don't act like that they are like "oh, not very progressive are we!"

  • MNG||

    I will say spoofing starts off with a presumption of lame for me too.

    I mean really, who needs to spoof John when you have the real thing!

  • ||

    Exactly.

  • Gray Ghost||

    You know, we can get half-assed threading and a terrible link parser in this board's software, but we can't enable registration?

    Almost enough to make me cancel my subscription and take Postrel's name in vain. (It's 5:30, I could use a drink.)

  • ||

    You know, we can get half-assed threading and a terrible link parser in this board's software, but we can't enable registration?

    They had a questionnaire and registration was one of the options they asked for comments on.

    Anyway if you do not put your email address or put in a website when you post then expect to get spoofed. And if you see a name in black text do not trust it.

    I don't see the problem....even that coward Warty posts his website.

  • Warty||

    Or at least some other person's website that has a poem he likes. What a fucking asshole.

  • alan||

    In case you didn't notice, there are a lot of pricks on this forum, and except for myself, I'm not calling any names. I can think of many ways to fuck someone over if I really wanted to with the information freely given out by many here, but I'm not of that bent, and have much better things to do with my time than engage in petty vindictiveness. However, I assume there are those who frequent this forum who are YY enough to do it, so that is why you wont get an e-mail or website attached to my name.

  • Warty||

    This is fucking pathetic. Can you do me next?

  • Congress||

    We're only interested in last week.
    Hotter? Colder?

  • robc||

    Colder. At least compared to previous two weeks.

  • Congress||

    So is it a trend? Something we can work with?
    Throw us a frikkin' bone here.

  • Tim||

    Captain Kirk: Harry lied to you, Norman. Everything Harry says is a lie. Remember that, Norman. *Everything* he says is a lie.
    Harcourt Fenton Mudd: Now I want you to listen to me very carefully, Norman. I'm... lying.
    Norman: You say you are lying, but if everything you say is a lie, then you are telling the truth, but you cannot tell the truth because you always lie... illogical! Illogical! Please explain! You are human; only humans can explain! Illogical!

  • anonymous||

    Copypasta? In my Reason?

  • waffles||

    yeah seriously! I expect higher tier trolling than lame 4chan copypasta! We've got to have standards! For the children!

  • MNG||

    My, my, such refudiation from folks whom know not what they speak of.

  • Paul||

    Ending sentences in prepositions... tsk-tsk.

  • ||

    Simple technical analysis shows an upward trend. IE, the temps go up some, and down some, but the overall trend is up.

    You can admit that without being in favor of some of the liberal proposals to fix it.

    It's ok, really, lol

  • MNG||

    "You can admit that without being in favor of some of the liberal proposals to fix it."

    This has been the gist of everything I've tried to say on this subject on H&R over the years.

  • Chad||

    You could "admit it", but in nine cases out of ten, you would still be wrong.

    Virtually everything under consideration for combating AGW easily provides more benefits than costs.

  • Paul||

  • Chad||

    By adding the word "virtual", I was implying the exclusion of crackpots.

  • ||

    Not remotely, but thanks for consistently slinging around the horseshit, Chad!

  • Coal Country Democrat||

    Virtually everything under consideration for combating AGW easily provides more benefits than costs.

    I disagree

  • The Job Market||

    I disagree as well.

  • Mike M.||

    ...but the overall trend is up.

    Not since 1998 it isn't. And given how the economies of the biggest nations on earth (China, India) have exploded in these last twelve years, I'm thinking there has to be FAR more carbon dioxide and other so-called greenhouse gases in the atmosphere now than there was back then.

  • ||

    You don't seem to understand how trends work. Draw a trendline through the bottoms of the temps, when that's broken, that will be a warning that the trend might no longer be up.

    To confirm, then look for a lower swing high, and a lower swing low.

  • Chad||

    But there has been massive warming since 97 and 99.

    Two out of three, I win. Game, set, match.

    Thanks for playing.

  • ||

    Obligitory Chad is an idiot quote:

    Old Mexican|12.3.09 @ 6:32PM|#
    Re: Chad,
    If you have no idea why Greenland is melting, I suggest you learn to read anything other than crackpot websites. AGW is by far the strongest in the Arctic, and I am sure that even you can understand the ice-albedo effect.
    Why is the fact that Greenland is "melting" a bad thing? It did melt before, you know...
    reply to this
    Chad|12.3.09 @ 10:52PM|#
    20 meters of water, dipshit. I kinda like Miami and Manhattan (let alone Bangledesh, which I here is nice this time of year).
    reply to this
    joshua corning|12.4.09 @ 12:39AM|#
    wait a min did you just claim that Greenland will melt in a time frame where terms like Miami and Manhattan even have any meaning?
    I am sorry sir but you are a nut. There is no scenario in any IPCC report in which sea levels will rise 20 feet within 1000 years or less.
    reply to this
    joshua corning|12.4.09 @ 12:40AM|#
    20 meters not 20 feet.
    reply to this
    Chad|12.4.09 @ 7:12AM|#
    And anyone who knows anything knows that the IPCC report left out a lot the ice melt trends due to the uncertainty. Since that time, the certainty has been increased, and the data has gotten far, far worse.

  • Chad||

    The funny thing is, you are so wrong in so many ways in that passage (the IPCC doesn't even cover a thousand years, so of COURSE it doesn't make any particular prediction about the year 3000!).

    Greenland = 20 feet
    West Antarctica = 17 feet
    East Antarctica = 200 feet

    West Antarctica alone would wipe out a third of Florida. What's that worth?

  • ||

    You really are an idiot:

    Temperature and sea level rise for each SRES scenario family

    There are six families of SRES Scenarios, and AR4 provides projected temperature and sea level rises (excluding future rapid dynamical changes in ice flow[5])for each scenario family.

    * Scenario B1
    o Best estimate temperature rise of 1.8 °C with a likely range of 1.1 to 2.9 °C (3.2 °F with a likely range of 2.0 to 5.2 °F)
    o Sea level rise likely range [18 to 38 cm] (7 to 15 inches)
    * Scenario A1T
    o Best estimate temperature rise of 2.4 °C with a likely range of 1.4 to 3.8 °C (4.3 °F with a likely range of 2.5 to 6.8 °F)
    o Sea level rise likely range [20 to 45 cm] (8 to 18 inches)
    * Scenario B2
    o Best estimate temperature rise of 2.4 °C with a likely range of 1.4 to 3.8 °C (4.3 °F with a likely range of 2.5 to 6.8 °F)
    o Sea level rise likely range [20 to 43 cm] (8 to 17 inches)
    * Scenario A1B
    o Best estimate temperature rise of 2.8 °C with a likely range of 1.7 to 4.4 °C (5.0 °F with a likely range of 3.1 to 7.9 °F)
    o Sea level rise likely range [21 to 48 cm] (8 to 19 inches)
    * Scenario A2
    o Best estimate temperature rise of 3.4 °C with a likely range of 2.0 to 5.4 °C (6.1 °F with a likely range of 3.6 to 9.7 °F)
    o Sea level rise likely range [23 to 51 cm] (9 to 20 inches)
    * Scenario A1FI
    o Best estimate temperature rise of 4.0 °C with a likely range of 2.4 to 6.4 °C (7.2 °F with a likely range of 4.3 to 11.5 °F)
    o Sea level rise likely range [26 to 59 cm] (10 to 23 inches)

  • Chad||

    Josh, you need to understand that

    A: Those numbers are the sea-level rise by 2100....it will continue long after that, even if we stop spewing CO2.

    B: Those numbers don't include ice-sheet collapse, because the data wasn't solid enough in 2005 to make predictions. It is now. And the new data is nothing but bad.

  • Chad||

    Oh, and we are tracking pretty close to A1F1. Pretty much everything since 2005 has been near the IPCC's worst case, or worse.

  • ||

    "Ice sheet collapse", as you call it, is a theory that meltwater on top of glaciers could drain through the ice down to the bedrock, and act as a lubricant accelerating the glacier's speed. This theory is physically plausible on a small scale, in locations where both the temperature change and topography meet necessary conditions.

    "Greenland = 20 feet"

    Your contention that "ice sheet collapse" will cause all of the ice in Greenland to melt and thereby raise sea level by 20 ft (or 20 meters as you stated earlier) is absolutely preposterous.

    This is easily refuted by abundant evidence. The very existence of up to 400k years of ice core records disproves your erroneous and catastrophic misinterpretation of "ice sheet collapse". Over many millennia all that ice has somehow managed to stay where it is, even after repeated interglacial warm periods (which were warmer than present).

  • Spencer Smith||

    It's my fault. I am responsible.

  • robc||

    Nit pickery #2:

    Shouldnt the July temperature anomalies include some negative months? The amount of anomaly should be the absolute value of the difference from the zero line (however determined).

    Unlike the zero line, there is no excuse for that Ron.

  • WTF||

    All I know is that it has been hot as fucking hell here in central VA for the past month. We just finished the hottest and driest July on record. As in ever.

    And we're looking at triple digits yet again tomorrow. Whoopee!

  • microwave oven||

    Who do you trust, Reason or yourself?

  • DanD||

    We just finished the hottest and driest July on record. As in ever.

    No, as in "on record." The land you're living in existed a long time before weather records, the United States, and thermometers.

  • WTF||

    No shit? You don't say. Glad you cleared that up for me. I feel so ... enlightened.

    Tell me more!

  • ||

    Why are you worrying about long term temperature trends? The sun is exploding.

  • Paul||

    When will Seattle get The Warming?

  • Paul||

    Great quote from my daughter, this morning: Winter and Fall did their job, but Spring and Summer haven't done theirs.

  • ||

    Then she asked you if you plugged the hole?

  • ||

    http://climateinsiders.files.w.....sgiss1.jpg

    Note that actual GISTEMP is below all three of Hansen’s forecasts. According to RealClimate :

    Scenario B was roughly a linear increase in forcings, and Scenario C was similar to B, but had close to constant forcings from 2000 onwards. Scenario B and C had an ‘El Chichon’ sized volcanic eruption in 1995. Essentially, a high, middle and low estimate were chosen to bracket the set of possibilities. Hansen specifically stated that he thought the middle scenario (B) the “most plausible”.

    In other words, actual temperature rise has been less than Hansen forecast – even if there was a huge volcanic eruption in the 1990s, and no new CO2 introduced over the past decade! We have fallen more than half a degree below Hansen’s “most plausible” scenario, even though CO2 emissions have risen faster than worst case.

    Global warming is a hoax

  • AlmightyJB||

    Going back to 1979 is a joke. Go back to 1,979,000 bc and then come talk to me.

  • Apogee||

    Or, for that matter, go back 350M years, where CO2 was 3000ppm.

    Those damn SUV's!

  • ||

    sooo the recap the hottest global temperatures over the past 30+ years were during el nino events.

    and the most recent one was colder then then the one 12 years ago.

    Furthermore we see that rather then causing a flatting upward trend as global warming predicts with global temperatures we see more dramatic up swings and more dramatic down swings and a trend line that is mostly flat and well within the expected climate variations that have occurred within the last 1000 years.

  • -||

    To sum up: Everything we know is wrong.

  • Oosik||

    Typo:

    "Tropics: +0.48 C (about 0.61 degrees Fahrenheit) above 20-year average for July."

    0.48 C is approximately 0.86 F

  • دردشة||

    thank u

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement