July hottest month since records began say nasa

The past nine months have set temperature records for their respective months and the trend continued this month to make 10 in a row, according to Nasa. July broke the absolute record for hottest month since records began in 1880.

spot wrote:
Records began in 1880 there is no indication that it was hotter before that.

spot wrote:
1) Who said it did I don't think it works so an organisation can't make a statement about something that happened

spot wrote:
2) That statement is a lie

spot wrote:
3) That statement does not make sense

spot wrote:
4) Pass the tinfoil,

spot wrote:
5) Like they put a man on the moon WOOO WOOO CONSPIRACY.

spot wrote:
I really think you just say stuff for the sake of saying it I don't think you have any personal interest in what is happening and just like being an Edge Lord, and winding people up for the hell of it.

spot wrote:
anyway just learned I could do this so I reposted a GIF that illistrates the point.

spot wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/aug/16/july-2016-was-worlds-hottest-month-since-records-began-says-nasa

Mans influence plus a strong El-Nino are causing record temperatures according to NASA. Of course we live in a post fact world so don't concern yourself.

Into the Night wrote:

spot wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/aug/16/july-2016-was-worlds-hottest-month-since-records-began-says-nasa

Mans influence plus a strong El-Nino are causing record temperatures according to NASA. Of course we live in a post fact world so don't concern yourself.

Mars influence???

At least not even NASA made a statement that stupid.

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

spot wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/aug/16/july-2016-was-worlds-hottest-month-since-records-began-says-nasa

Mans influence plus a strong El-Nino are causing record temperatures according to NASA. Of course we live in a post fact world so don't concern yourself.

Mars influence???

At least not even NASA made a statement that stupid.

Learn to read, you thick twat.

Into the Night wrote:

spot wrote:
Records began in 1880 there is no indication that it was hotter before that.

1) NASA didn't exist in 1880.

2) Individual weather station logs that DO exist back to 1880 do not show any changes.

3) It is not possible to calculate a global temperature, or even the temperature of the United States. The method of averaging constitutes a math error in statistics.

4) Both NOAA and NASA are government agencies, bound to the government agenda.

5) This is certainly not the first stupid thing NASA has claimed.

Hank wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

spot wrote:
Records began in 1880 there is no indication that it was hotter before that.

1) NASA didn't exist in 1880.

2) Individual weather station logs that DO exist back to 1880 do not show any changes.

3) It is not possible to calculate a global temperature, or even the temperature of the United States. The method of averaging constitutes a math error in statistics.

4) Both NOAA and NASA are government agencies, bound to the government agenda.

5) This is certainly not the first stupid thing NASA has claimed.

Night you stated that "The method of averaging constitutes a math error in statistics". What error would you be referring too?

Into the Night wrote:

Hank wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

spot wrote:
Records began in 1880 there is no indication that it was hotter before that.

1) NASA didn't exist in 1880.

2) Individual weather station logs that DO exist back to 1880 do not show any changes.

3) It is not possible to calculate a global temperature, or even the temperature of the United States. The method of averaging constitutes a math error in statistics.

4) Both NOAA and NASA are government agencies, bound to the government agenda.

5) This is certainly not the first stupid thing NASA has claimed.

Night you stated that "The method of averaging constitutes a math error in statistics". What error would you be referring too?

Insufficient sampling capability. Also, the samples we do have are not able to select a data point into the random system without dependency on the data point itself. This makes the sample data that you intend to analyze invalid.

Statistics is a great summarizing tool, even if it destructively compresses the data. It depends, however, on a random selection method of the data that is independent of the data itself. To do this for a global result from randomly selected thermometers, the selection process must have nothing to do with the location of the thermometers themselves. Weighting the data is adjusting it for an assumed condition that now becomes part of the summary. Since there are insufficient numbers of thermometers to build such a random sample with, the error margin is simply too high to make the summary useful.

Temperatures can and do vary by as much as 20 deg F in a single mile. Since most of the world has no thermometers at all, there is no way to come up with a valid number, even assuming the thermometers were all calibrated, monitored, and read at the same time.

A satellite system can measure temperature, but only over a single moving spot at a time.

Hank wrote:
You seem to be very familiar with statistical analysis. That being the case, how many thermometers would it take to be sufficient to accurately measure an increase in the global temperature?

Into the Night wrote:

Hank wrote:
You seem to be very familiar with statistical analysis. That being the case, how many thermometers would it take to be sufficient to accurately measure an increase in the global temperature?

An interesting question, that.

Each thermometer can measure only a point (where the thermometer's sensor itself is at). In the case of satellites, it's a moving point.

The margin of error is a function of the number of samples taken versus the number of samples total, assuming the random element of sampling has nothing to do with the sample data.

Here, however, we have a different case.

To gain a truly accurate picture of the world, you would have to compare the samples taken over uniformly spaced thermometers against the infinite numbers of points not measured between them.

We do know temperature can vary a lot in a short distance, even inside a specific building.

Let's try simplifying the model by considering not the world, but a single house.

The thermostat on your wall, like most thermometers, can only measure the temperature at that point on the wall. It knows nothing about the temperature in the attic, in the basement, in the car's engine cooling down after a drive, or the inside of your refrigerator. It knows nothing about the window getting shade while another one is receiving full sunlight.

Can it ever be truly said you know what the temperature of your own house is?

When you extend this to the world, you extend the complexities of the same problem to the complexities of the world. As a result, I don't think you can EVER have enough thermometers to truly measure the temperature.

That said, we can make some reasonably practical assumptions. First, whatever density of instrumentation we use, it is essential that it be uniform in its distribution. Only then can you build a sample base in which the random element does not depend on the data itself.

We can assume temperature will generally not vary more than 20 deg F per mile. Any that does could be considered an aberration and tossed out, since we interested only in a general overall temperature. We don't care about the ice cube in a drink.

Further, we can assume the difference will be a smooth curve and ignore any 'bumps' in that curve. This is like measuring the length of a shoreline. You don't count every little grain of sand that you have to go around, but measure from headland to headland.

With all of these assumptions, a thermometer placed uniformly every square mile could produce a combined average temperature accurate to within +- 14 deg F (the distance halfway to the average of a neighboring thermometer against the assumed gradient).

Obviously not good enough. Also, just as obviously, we have nowhere near that many thermometers.

Yes...an interesting question, that.

Hank wrote:
You've made some interesting points but I understand statistics reasonably well. Can you give me the formula for how you came up with the -+14 degrees F based on a thermometer every square mile?

Hank wrote:
Also where did you come up with the 20 degrees F per mile.

Hank wrote:
I think it would be rare for that to be the case since heat transfer is a well-developed scientific principle that has been empirically verified.

Hank wrote:
For this to not be picked up by a thermometer 1 mile away would mean the 20 degree rise would have to be isolated inside the 1 square mile with the 20 degree lower temperature surrounding that area.
Otherwise one of the other thermometers would pick it up and record it.

Hank wrote:
And this would have to happen in hundreds of thousands of locations for a large part of the year to have any effect on the results since there are 57 million square miles of land. I don't see how that can happen.

Hank wrote:
As I said previously I do use statistics to calculate the RMS of reflector surfaces and the points are not uniformly spaced but each point is weighted for the area it represents. We have run tests to determine the accuracy of the surface and have found that at some point, and it's not very large, having more points does not improve the accuracy. Neither does having the points uniformly spaced as long as the random points are weighted with the area. I cannot think of any other scientific area of study where this principle does not apply. If you have some information that disputes that I would really be interested in seeing it. So why would this principle work for all other areas except global temperature?

Hank wrote:
One other point. You brought up the thermostat in the house and the points you made are correct. However the difference is I don't have to know the temperature of every spot in the house to know if the temperature is going up or going down since it is a closed system and I am reading the temperature at the same location every day. Therefore if the thermostat is set on 70 degrees F which will be the temperature at that location within a small tolerance, and I raise the thermostat by 1 degree every year, in ten years I will certainly feel the effect because whatever the average temperature was when I started, in ten years the average yearly temperature will be 10 degrees higher even though I still would not know the temperature at every point in the house. Would you agree with that and if not, why not?

Into the Night wrote:
Observed.

Into the Night wrote:
Yet it happens commonly, as observed. Differences may occur due to mountains and the airflow because of them, proximity to water, pressure differences in the atmosphere, presence if different types of vegetation, presence of different light absorbing surfaces, cloud cover, precip activity, direction of wind, etc.

Into the Night wrote:
It does.

Into the Night wrote:
The RMS calculations for reflector surfaces is a very closed system. It's a lot easier when your reflector is not moving around. The atmosphere is constantly moving.

Into the Night wrote:
To a point. Some parts of the house would be hotter, others would not be affected at all. It really depends on what part of the house you're in.

Your refrigerator would stay the same. The car in the garage would stay the same. The attic would be warmer, but not as warm as the hallway with the thermostat since it vents. The basement would be hotter, but the same thing applies. Standing next to the open window would remain almost the same. However, yes. You would notice the temperature rise. All of this is due to the additional energy you added and the insulation of your home.

Of course there is no source of energy for the Earth other than the sun and Earth's own core. We can't turn it up or down. It's going to to what it's going to do.

Surface Detail wrote:
Sorry, but the idea that scientists would be unable to detect a change in global temperature equal to the difference between now and the depths of the ice age, even with a thermometer on every square mile, is totally absurd. Time to check your working, ITN!

Hank wrote:In the scenario we are talking about the same thing would happen if the control system was set to produce the same heating and cooling every day and the insulation was gradually increased each year.

Hank wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Observed.

When you say observed are you talking about you have personally measured this at multiple locations for long periods of time or are you talking about some scientific research that verifies this?

Hank wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Yet it happens commonly, as observed. Differences may occur due to mountains and the airflow because of them, proximity to water, pressure differences in the atmosphere, presence if different types of vegetation, presence of different light absorbing surfaces, cloud cover, precip activity, direction of wind, etc.

The reason I'm having trouble with this is because of my experiences. I drive to work 25 miles one way every working day. I have a thermometer built into my car like most do today and I never see the thermometer reading have those 20 degree increases. I often stop places on my way home and I never seem to park in one of those places. I lived on a lake for 5 years right next to the water and didn't experience those jumps in temperature. When I look at the local news every night it covers several counties and I never see 20 degree jumps in temperature on the maps they display. They all look about the same temperature within a few degrees in the counties that are shown. So although it might be a little cooler in one area than in another there is no 20 degree jump. Do you think my experiences are unique?

Hank wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
It does.

So if it is happening in hundreds of thousands of locations for a large part of the year, are some of the jumps in temperature higher and some lower or are you saying they are all biased in one direction. The statistical methods for this is based on random checks (for any kind of random sample) to average out the extremes. So if some places in between the readings have a higher temperature then other places have the same lower temperature that average each other out.

Hank wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
The RMS calculations for reflector surfaces is a very closed system. It's a lot easier when your reflector is not moving around. The atmosphere is constantly moving.

Actually the antenna is moving as it follows a satellite across the sky so that the readings are taken at different pointing orientations. That does not affect the basic principle that taking a few random points on the surface will provide an accurate measurement of the surface profile. And it is not a very closed system in that changes in temperature and changes in wind pressures will affect the deflections of the surface. It's the same reason polls have become pretty accurate even though they only sample say a thousand voters among a vastly higher population. The same reason statisticians can determine the life expectancy of people in the US without knowing exactly how long any individual will live. I don't see how there is any difference in the application to reflector surfaces or polls or any of the numerous fields where statistics are used to measure results and climate scientists using random thermometer readings across the earth to determine temperature changes.

Hank wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
To a point. Some parts of the house would be hotter, others would not be affected at all. It really depends on what part of the house you're in.

Your refrigerator would stay the same. The car in the garage would stay the same. The attic would be warmer, but not as warm as the hallway with the thermostat since it vents. The basement would be hotter, but the same thing applies. Standing next to the open window would remain almost the same. However, yes. You would notice the temperature rise. All of this is due to the additional energy you added and the insulation of your home.

Of course there is no source of energy for the Earth other than the sun and Earth's own core. We can't turn it up or down. It's going to to what it's going to do.

Again I agree that some parts of the house would have a different temperature. But the change in average temperature would be registered in the thermometer if it was averaged out over each year.

I also agree the earth's energy source is the sun and we can't control that. In the scenario we are talking about the same thing would happen if the control system was set to produce the same heating and cooling every day and the insulation was gradually increased each year. You would see an increase in the temperature each year that would be registered on the thermometer in the thermostat. And increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is like putting insulation on the earth.

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
Sorry, but the idea that scientists would be unable to detect a change in global temperature equal to the difference between now and the depths of the ice age, even with a thermometer on every square mile, is totally absurd. Time to check your working, ITN!

So now you deny that the atmosphere contains any of the earth's "global average temperature"? That only the very bottom edge of the atmosphere matters?

Will you go on record with this as your official position?

If not, then you must acknowledge that merely decking out the earth's surface with millions of thermometers is egregiously insufficient...

...or have you not thought this through very well?


.

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
Sorry, but the idea that scientists would be unable to detect a change in global temperature equal to the difference between now and the depths of the ice age, even with a thermometer on every square mile, is totally absurd. Time to check your working, ITN!

So now you deny that the atmosphere contains any of the earth's "global average temperature"? That only the very bottom edge of the atmosphere matters?

Will you go on record with this as your official position?

If not, then you must acknowledge that merely decking out the earth's surface with millions of thermometers is egregiously insufficient...

...or have you not thought this through very well?


.

I haven't denied anything. I was merely pointing out the absurdity of ITN's claim that our current instrumentation would be insufficient to detect a change in the Earth's temperature exceeding that of the difference between now and the depths of the ice age.

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
Sorry, but the idea that scientists would be unable to detect a change in global temperature equal to the difference between now and the depths of the ice age, even with a thermometer on every square mile, is totally absurd. Time to check your working, ITN!

So now you deny that the atmosphere contains any of the earth's "global average temperature"? That only the very bottom edge of the atmosphere matters?

Will you go on record with this as your official position?

If not, then you must acknowledge that merely decking out the earth's surface with millions of thermometers is egregiously insufficient...

...or have you not thought this through very well?


.

I haven't denied anything. I was merely pointing out the absurdity of ITN's claim that our current instrumentation would be insufficient to detect a change in the Earth's temperature exceeding that of the difference between now and the depths of the ice age.

You have not thought this through very well.

You don't know what the temperatures were around the planet during the last ice age. You don't know the overall temperature of the planet then either.

It is not possible to measure or calculate the temperature of the Earth today with our present instrumentation.

The instrumentation required to make such a measurement is impractical for political reasons and difficulty of access reasons, not to mention the expense of creating such instrumentation.

Surface Detail wrote:We know from analyses of oxygen isotope ratios in ice cores and sediments that the average temperature of the Earth during the depths of the ice age was about 8 deg F colder than today.

Surface Detail wrote:The Arctic ice cap extended as far as Kentucky in North America and to the English Midlands.

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:We know from analyses of oxygen isotope ratios in ice cores and sediments that the average temperature of the Earth during the depths of the ice age was about 8 deg F colder than today.

What is that phrase? ..."You aren't even wrong"?

We don't know what earth's average global temperature is today much less how much warmer/colder it is than at some uncertain time in the past. Your assertion is absurdly not even wrong.

Did you really claim that a potential temperature indication from an ice core not only tells what the temperature was at the location of the ice core but for the entire planet? I can't even begin to tell you how that is so not even wrong. Hey! Why use a thermometer. to get the temperature at only one point in space when we can just read the entire planet's temperature from some ice?!

Surface Detail wrote:The Arctic ice cap extended as far as Kentucky in North America and to the English Midlands.

At that exact time was it unusually warmer in the southern hemisphere?

Not even wrong.

Surface Detail wrote:Having trouble reading again, I see. I said ice cores and sediments.

Surface Detail wrote:Analysis of these and other proxies indicates that, at the Last Glacial Maximum, Antarctica was about 8 C below its current temperature,

Leafsdude wrote:Using ice cores for temperature data sounds stupid and impossible to IBDM, therefore it is stupid and impossible.

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:Having trouble reading again, I see. I said ice cores and sediments.

I apologize. I fully intended to include an additional block of text for the sediment comment but I jumped around and accidentally posted without it. Since you feel shortchanged I'll post it here:

Did you really claim that sediment in a particular location tells us the temperature for the entire planet at a particular time? I can't even begin to tell you how that is so not even wrong. Hey! Why use a thermometer. to get the temperature at only one point in space when we can just read the entire planet's temperature from some sediment!

There. You now have the full, intended response.

Surface Detail wrote:Analysis of these and other proxies indicates that, at the Last Glacial Maximum, Antarctica was about 8 C below its current temperature,

The sediment "indicates" this? Why yes, it's so totally clear now. I so totally believe you. It all sounds so totally credible. The entire planet's average temperature, with the totality of the atmosphere and hydrosphere included. Of course ... from some sediment somewhere.

...and here I am stuck in the stone age, still using thermometers. Man, am I behind the times!



Did you want to embellish on any of this or did you just want to remain not even wrong?


.

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
Sorry, but the idea that scientists would be unable to detect a change in global temperature equal to the difference between now and the depths of the ice age, even with a thermometer on every square mile, is totally absurd. Time to check your working, ITN!

So now you deny that the atmosphere contains any of the earth's "global average temperature"? That only the very bottom edge of the atmosphere matters?

Will you go on record with this as your official position?

If not, then you must acknowledge that merely decking out the earth's surface with millions of thermometers is egregiously insufficient...

...or have you not thought this through very well?


.

I haven't denied anything. I was merely pointing out the absurdity of ITN's claim that our current instrumentation would be insufficient to detect a change in the Earth's temperature exceeding that of the difference between now and the depths of the ice age.

You have not thought this through very well.

You don't know what the temperatures were around the planet during the last ice age. You don't know the overall temperature of the planet then either.

It is not possible to measure or calculate the temperature of the Earth today with our present instrumentation.

The instrumentation required to make such a measurement is impractical for political reasons and difficulty of access reasons, not to mention the expense of creating such instrumentation.

We know from analyses of oxygen isotope ratios in ice cores and sediments that the average temperature of the Earth during the depths of the ice age was about 8 deg F colder than today. The Arctic ice cap extended as far as Kentucky in North America and to the English Midlands.

This shows just how absurd your (revised) claim is that scientists are would be unable to detect global temperature changes of less then 11 deg F, even with a thermometer every square mile.

spot wrote:
Not really ice cores can be used to find out all sort of information. The fact that some random unpleasant guy on the internet who thinks he's a super-genius whilst trolling people on barely moderated forums claims not to believe it does not stop the fact the data exists.

spot wrote:Not really ice cores can be used to find out all sort of informations.

Into the Night wrote:Do you still believe my thermometer is capable of measuring the temperature of the globe?

spot wrote: It's a bit more complex then that obviously, only a remedial level idiot would think otherwise.