Oh gee, you got me. I was not sure what the baseline average they used for the anomaly chart zero line and you found out. Good for you Guess what nitwit. It doesn't matter. It is a departure from average chart. We could have used any time period at all. The chart would still look like it does with the same uptrend. You can't grasp this simple concept but yet you presume to know better than the world's climate scientists. And what are you arguing anyhow? That the world is not rapidly warming? If so, you are even more deluded than I thought. You have no clue as to the actual science going on. *************************** An independent assessment of Mann's hockey stick was conducted by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (Wahl 2007). They reconstructed temperatures employing a variety of statistical techniques (with and without principal components analysis). Their results found slightly different temperatures in the early 15th Century. However, they confirmed the principal results of the original hockey stick - that the warming trend and temperatures over the last few decades are unprecedented over at least the last 600 years While many continue to fixate on Mann's early work on proxy records, the science of paleoclimatology has moved on. Since 1999, there have been many independentreconstructions of past temperatures, using a variety of proxy data and a number of different methodologies. All find the same result - that the last few decades are the hottest in the last 500 to 2000 years (depending on how far back the reconstruction goes). What are some of the proxies that are used to determine past temperature? Changes in surface temperature send thermal waves underground, cooling or warming the subterranean rock. To track these changes, underground temperature measurements were examined from over 350 bore holes in North America, Europe, Southern Africa and Australia (Huang 2000). Borehole reconstructions aren't able to give short term variation, yielding only century-scale trends. What they find is that the 20th century is the warmest of the past five centuries with the strongest warming trend in 500 years. Stalagmites (or speleothems) are formed from groundwater within underground caverns. As they're annually banded, the thickness of the layers can be used as climate proxies. Areconstruction of Northern Hemisphere temperature from stalagmites shows that while theuncertainty range (grey area) is significant, the temperature in the latter 20th Century exceeds the maximum estimate over the past 500 years (Smith 2006). Historical records of glacier length can be used as a proxy for temperature. As the number of monitored glaciers diminishes in the past, the uncertainty grows accordingly. Nevertheless, temperatures in recent decades exceed the uncertainty range over the past 400 years (Oerlemans 2005). Of course, these examples only go back around 500 years - this doesn't even cover theMedieval Warm Period. When you combine all the various proxies, including ice cores, coral, lake sediments, glaciers, boreholes & stalagmites, it's possible to reconstruct Northern Hemisphere temperatures without tree-ring proxies going back 1,300 years (Mann 2008). The result is that temperatures in recent decades exceed the maximum proxyestimate (including uncertainty range) for the past 1,300 years. When you include tree-ring data, the same result holds for the past 1,700 years.
So FC... 10^24 Joules represents the amount of heat necessary to raise the temperature of the earth's oceans by one degree. Please do the math and show us what temperature in degrees to the earth's oceans an increase of 30 * 10^22 Joules represents over 50 years. This is such simple math that even a simple-minded dimwit should be able to do it. Please do your homework and present your results.
FC even has earlier posts where he made claims that the Arctic would be ice free by 2013. Do I need to go back and re-post screen shots of all of his posts pushing this assertion. He clearly is a global warming alarmist which is not much different than a religious extremist.
New York Times Dupes Readers – Hypes climate poll by discredited Stanford Pollster Jon Krosnick – Pollster previously reprimanded for poor methods by both Gallup & Pew Research http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/01...for-poor-methods-by-both-gallup-pew-research/
All I had to do was read the poll. I became a skeptic when I read the first page which stated that some of the questions were withheld from the results. Reputable pollsters don't do that; they let the chips fall where they may. I'm not a professional pollster, but every first year low level employee with a reputable polling organization is laughing at this poll. The questions might as well have started with, 'Let's assume that the earth is flat, ...'
FC, I have more prestigious educational credentials than most of the 'climate scientists' upon whose feet you worship. I find it quite amusing that you view them as infallible Gods. Most of them are simply whoring themselves out for a dollar. If you understood the science of AGW and had the intellectual capacity to comprehend the minutia of the subject, we could engage in an intellectual debate. But you are a simpleton who does not understand the subject beyond a bumper sticker statement. You're a pawn, much like Mongo. You posted a chart that you do not understand. My question wasn't merely about the baseline; it was to determine if you understood the methodology of the chart and its obvious flaws. The baseline discussion was simply an opener question, much like the first question one would encounter on 'Who Wants To Be A Millionaire'. In this case, it was, 'Who Understands AGW Theory'. You failed. You ARE the weakest link. Unfortunately, you do not possess the intellectual capacity to understand how easy it is to manipulate your thoughts. No, the world is not rapidly warming. And even if it was, our current understanding of climate science is not deep enough to separate natural temperature variations from AGW. Anyone telling you otherwise has ulterior motives. But feel free to continue with your juvenile statements to the contrary.
Hey ifly, I would ask for my money back because your education was obviously poor and lacked the teaching of rational thinking, science, and logic skills. Not warming? LOL
As do those who deny the fact that warming is occurring. Guess it depends on which ulterior motives one wants to have.