Posted on 04/19/2016 11:31:19 AM PDT by PROCON
How does that correlate with the output of the sun? Any article that fails to make that correlation is a fraud.
You said it, chum.
<beat>
Hey, wait a minute....
Reparations!!!
Reparations!!!
Reparations!!!
Raise taxes.
X% El Nino, Y% Anthropogenic CO2, where X% is something like 99.999 ???
No need.
Look at where they are collecting these “scientific” temperatures.
Bartow Florida has a temp monitor in the middle of a large asphalt parking lot. Originally that monitor was in the middle of the country, with absolutely nothing but woods and fields for miles. Over 50 years it became surrounded with asphalt, cars and buildings with air conditioners blasting out heat. They then make the claim that this is proof of the climate warming.
They have also been removing selected temp monitors as well as placing new ones in highly urban areas. And even this chicanery has not been sufficient to fake warming. Even then they have to resort to altering the raw data.
Yes, some people in the so called climate change debate should go to jail. But it’s not the “deniers” that are the criminals.
Garbage in garbage out
Yup, heat islands.
In recent years, researchers have considered the possibility that the sun plays a role in global warming. After all, the sun is the main source of heat for our planet. The NRC report suggests, however, that the influence of solar variability is more regional than global. The Pacific region is only one example.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/
I guess when the libs find something they think works for them and fools the useful idiots, it becomes one size fits all.
Systematic Error in Climate Measurements: The surface air temperature record
by Pat Frank
.....
The record shows that during the years 1800-1860, the published global uncertainty limits of field meteorological temperatures equal the accuracy of the best possible laboratory-conditions measurements.
After about 1860 through 2000, the published resolution is small smaller than the detection limits — the resolution limits — of the instruments themselves. From at least 1860, accuracy has been magicked out of thin air.
Does anyone find the published uncertainties credible?
All you engineers and experimental scientists out there may go into shock after reading this. I was certainly shocked by the realization. Espresso helps.
The people compiling the global instrumental record have neglected a experimental limit even more basic than systematic measurement error: the detection limits of their instruments. They have paid no attention to it.
Resolution limits and systematic measurement error produced by the instrument itself constitute lower limits of uncertainty. The scientists engaged in consensus climatology have neglected both of them.
It’s almost as though none of them have ever made a measurement or struggled with an instrument. There is no other rational explanation for that sort of negligence than a profound ignorance of experimental methods.
The uncertainty estimate developed here shows that the rate or magnitude of change in global air temperature since 1850 cannot be known within ±1 C prior to 1980 or within ±0.6 C after 1990, at the 95% confidence interval.
The rate and magnitude of temperature change since 1850 is literally unknowable. There is no support at all for any “unprecedented” in the surface air temperature record.
Claims of highest air temperature ever, based on even 0.5 C differences, are utterly insupportable and without any meaning....
BTTT!
Twilight Zone - The Midnight Sun
A strong EL Nino caused Winter to be warm. The Global Warming Hoax had nothing to do with Winter.
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.