Durban Climate Change Conference 2011
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
Everything there is to explain about 1934 and why 1998 is still only the second hottest year.
What scientific group is Wood for Trees: Home ?
Was man to blame for 1934 yes or no?
What scientific group is Wood for Trees: Home ?
Was man to blame for 1934 yes or no?
Last edited:
Don't expect a scientific explanation from someone who doesn't believe that refined petroleum products can be moved in a pipeline. At some point, you have to accept that some people don't understand science and engineering.
And the Global Warming Crowd.... errrr, excuse me Climate Change Crowd are consistent?
So I take it this means you won't be offering an alternative explanation for the climate change we're experiencing now? Shocker. You always slither away from your silly claims.
1934 was a very hot year in the US (about 2% of the globe), but as you can see it was unremarkable globally. If you actually think that one year can be significant with respect to climate, then you have yet again failed at grasping the basics of the climate system. The year to year variability is large in the climate system. The signal to noise ratio is high.
It's not a scientific group. It's a website that collects information from the major climate databases, and uses C++ to allow any user to create graphs from the data, with a decent array of processing steps available.
A can't be taxed cop out? Put the beers down.
What do you need explained?
WoodForTrees dot Org?
Is your graph pre or post 2007 NASA GISS corrections?
So why was 1934 the hottest on record according to corrected NASA/GISS? Man and carbon?
I wouldn't know. I do know that the lot of you have less science aptitude than my girlfriends elementary school aged cousin.
Well I don't, but it's funny to see the circle jerking conspiracy nuts throwing spaghetti at the wall.
I remember one time when Petros posted some data on airplane con trails. Then when I showed him the math, he no longer trusted the data. Pretty funny bunch of cranks they are!:lol:
Apparently the **** up was indeed for real. How many of you yahoos are still quoting old incorrect data?
Data.GISS: Surface Temperature Analysis: August 2007 Update and Effects
From your NASA link:
Contrary to some statements flying around the internet, there is no effect on the rankings of global temperature. Also our prior analysis had 1934 as the warmest year in the U.S. (see the 2001 paper above), and it continues to be the warmest year, both before and after the correction to post 2000 temperatures. However, as we note in that paper, the 1934 and 1998 temperature are practically the same, the difference being much smaller than the uncertainty.
Contrary to some statements flying around the internet, there is no effect on the rankings of global temperature. Also our prior analysis had 1934 as the warmest year in the U.S. (see the 2001 paper above), and it continues to be the warmest year, both before and after the correction to post 2000 temperatures. However, as we note in that paper, the 1934 and 1998 temperature are practically the same, the difference being much smaller than the uncertainty.
So was it carbon and man in 1934 or not? Answer the ****ing question.
So was it carbon and man in 1934 or not? Answer the ****ing question.
Partly yes. The sun was more active in the 1930's too. Probably some other internal climate factors too.
Jeez, you're being awfully bitchy for a fella who won't answer others questions. Did you miss nap time?
Oh Yeah? Well maybe you should put your "girlfriend's elementary school aged cousin" in charge.
She couldn't do any worse that you! Give her the Blue fonted screen name!
Good luck trying to get money out of us.
Put a smiley face on that.
Partly? Probably? WTF kind of scientist are you?
Explain in full how 1934 was partly caused by man and how the 1934 Solar Max differs to recent Solar Max events in relation to climate.
In charge of what? I said he has better science aptitude than you guys. That doesn't mean he should be in charge, just that you folks are not terribly bright when it comes to matters pertaining to science. We all have our shortcomings, some of us can accept them...
That is science. Good scientific communication always uses caveats, because there is always uncertainty. You want more certainty? Go to church. Uncertainty is a huge part of science.
I already explained to you why one year is meaningless. It's not possible to say with any certainty that it was 100% this or that, or even to say it's precisely 55% anthropogenic factors and 45% internal variability.
Whip out some facts. Facts don't need caveats and get out jail free cards. Lets see the facts behind 1934.
The fact is that you want me to state in certain terms exactly what caused the temperature of one year to be so warm for one small part of the globe, yet you can't even come up with a coherent explanation for your geomagnetic model. The fact is, that what you are asking is not possible. I've explained why, but you refuse to adapt to reality. We will never have 100% of all factors for any system quantified so well. There is random variation for one, that cannot be predicted. Bring your pals to Church, maybe someone will give you the answers you seek there. Science won't be able to answer what you're asking.
The fact is that you don't have a very good grasp of what science is, if you're looking for absolute statements. Next time you read a scientific paper (if you ever have), note the error bars, note the caveats, note the careful language. Scientists eviscerate arguments where statements are made with too high a level of certainty.
It wasn't just a year.
Whip out the facts or walk away.
Whip out the facts or walk away.
Why not? If you can't explain the recent past....