Posted on 02/06/2019 5:59:31 PM PST by EdnaMode
You can can come to any conclusion you want to when you rig all the data in order to get the results that you want.
The satellite data gives a different result.
Don’t forget that the thermometers that gather this important data are often surrounded by heat sinks.
A cooling trend as revealed in ice core data has existed for the last 3000 years.
https://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/holocene-context-for-catastrophic-anthropogenic-global-warming/
These warmist frauds are so ignorant . They lie, distort and omit. What malignancies on civil society and anti-science nitwits .
Climate science: Ignore the data and make s/]t up!
Since 2014 excludes that year.
The claim in the headline is not even close to true.
Its worse than that. Where themometers no longer exist or never did exist “infilling” is used. Which means making up readings based on computer models. The heating of the Earth predicted by the modeps thus can finally match the heating made up by the models.
What about those not on questionable records?
Let me guess... based on a “corrected” temperature record rather than unbiased measurements.
Earth is 4.5 billion years old... this means we would need over 6000 years of accurate weather data to maintain any level os statistical significance on a planetary level
Re: “Journalists are the poorest writers on Earth. Just the worst.”
Just yesterday I read that roughly one third of Web published news is now generated by specialist software.
Example: Quarterly financial reports and commentary published by business websites is almost 100% written by specialist software.
Helping this statistic become reality was the insight of a wise weather and climate guru who had the temperature stations moved closer to large urban areas making access a snap and the temps soar ...
What the bedwetters in the media, Democrats and the”global warmist “scientists won’t tell you that statistically, the temps for the hottest year ever all well within the margin of error. The claims are based on year-to-year temperature data that differs by only a few hundredths of a degree to up to a few tenths of a degree—differences that were within the margin of error in the surface data.
If it weren’t for the modern instruments, one couldn’t tell the difference and forget about measuring against historic data from the 1880s.
It’s a fraud, through and through.
Does this mean that out of 105 years 100 were the coldest and 5 the hottest?
All the oxygen produced by the visible upper canopy of foliage is consumed by the decaying dead growth on the jungle floor......it's a zero sum game.
When you look at carefully landscaped subdivisions, all you see are fresh new trees and green, manicured lawns absorbing CO2 and producing oxygen.....
The oceans are the primary source of oxygen production and CO2 absorption......
Andrew Freedman, Borg Collective at Axios.
I live on the north shore of Lake Huron. With any luck it will get warmer and warmer, I welcome it.
Most of us don't trust the professional alarmist because they've got a vested interest in pushing their storyline - and they've been less than honest on many occasions.
Why not take the daily temperature measurements from 6 midsized cities in the United States and compare them over the last 5 years? My iphone app gives me hourly temps... use those...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.