Earth just experienced its hottest September ever recorded

Buzz · Oct 19, 2019

Steve Case said:
GISTEMP just released their Land Ocean Temperature Index, LOTI for September 2019
Here's a link to their LOTI for August 2019. A side by side comparison between of LOTI for
August and September shows that of the 1677 monthly entries since 1880, 674 were adjusted.

The adjustments are in 0.01 degrees Celsius and most were either +1 or -1

All of the 453 adjustments prior to 1968 were negative except for February 1963.

All of the 221 adjustments since to 1969 were positive except for September 1994
and August 2019.

This sort of thing goes on month after month after month. Here's a rundown of the
Changes made so far in 2019:

Number of Changes to GISSTEMP's LOTI for 2019:
Jan Feb Mar Apr -May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
843 370 481 633 1359 566 281 400 674

For someone who frequently cites NASA's Gistemp, you are awfully uninformed on how it is determined.

Maybe you should brush up on your knowledge...

Data.GISS:
GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP v4)

Here is some relevant info from the faq page.

Note these two specifically.

As new data become available, the offset determined using that method may change. This explains why additional recent data can impact also much earlier data in any regional or global time series.

And...

These occasional corrections are one reason why monthly updates not only add e.g. global mean estimates for the new month, but may slightly change estimates for earlier months. Another reason for such changes are late reports for earlier months; finally, as more data become available, they impact the results of NOAA/NCEI's homogenization scheme and of NASA/GISS's combination scheme due to the presence of data gaps (see also the answer to the previous question).

You denialists need to quit pretending that NASA's frequent adjustments prove anything nefarious... because they don't.

Lord of Planar · Oct 19, 2019

Steve Case said:
GISTEMP just released their Land Ocean Temperature Index, LOTI for September 2019
Here's a link to their LOTI for August 2019. A side by side comparison between of LOTI for
August and September shows that of the 1677 monthly entries since 1880, 674 were adjusted.

The adjustments are in 0.01 degrees Celsius and most were either +1 or -1

All of the 453 adjustments prior to 1968 were negative except for February 1963.

All of the 221 adjustments since to 1969 were positive except for September 1994
and August 2019.

This sort of thing goes on month after month after month. Here's a rundown of the
Changes made so far in 2019:

Number of Changes to GISSTEMP's LOTI for 2019:
Jan Feb Mar Apr -May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
843 370 481 633 1359 566 281 400 674

The indoctrinated have their blinders set to deny such truths.

Lord of Planar · Oct 19, 2019

Bergslagstroll said:
The fossil fuel companies are among the most profitable companies are among the most profitable companies in the world and also have operation all across the world. So they could of course have exposed any wrongdoing in the recording of global temperature. Instead is the evidence for manmade global warming that even fossil fuel companies have to acknowledge the urgent need for action.

Climate emergency: what the oil, coal and gas giants say | Environment | The Guardian

Yes.

They get fantastic tax breaks and subsidies to research green options!

Follow the money!

Steve Case · Oct 19, 2019

Buzz said:
For someone who frequently cites NASA's Gistemp, you are awfully uninformed on how it is determined.

Maybe you should brush up on your knowledge...

Data.GISS:
GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP v4)

Here is some relevant info from the faq page.

Note these two specifically.

And...

You denialists need to quit pretending that NASA's frequent adjustments prove anything nefarious... because they don't.

From your quote above:

These occasional corrections ...

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

Maybe you didn't look at the stats I posted:

Number of Changes to GISSTEMP's LOTI for 2019:
Jan Feb Mar Apr -May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
843 370 481 633 1359 566 281 400 674

That goes on every month. I wouldn't call 674 corrections to 1600 entries occasional.

Here's what those corrections look like when plotted out: (Do you see a pattern?)

Here's how those corrections have affected the trend over the last 22 years:

Here are the data sources for the second chart.
1997 Data and the 2019 data

If you follow the 1997 link you will find that it says:

Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /Data/GISTEMP/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt on this server.
Apache/1.3.12 Server at www.giss.nasa.gov Port 80

That wasn't the case a few months ago. I assume the climate mafia has gotten
to the folks who run the WayBack Machine. Well OK maybe there's a more
prosaic reason but like all things with a Climate Mafia connection, it looks fishy.

Yes the changes are made because "new" data affects the 1951-1980 base period.
That means the every month they are going back and changing the base period.
Really? Just this last month they found enough 40+ year old data that was wrong
and required correction? And that it just happened that all the resulting adjustments
prior to 1968 save one were negative, and all of the adjustments for the later dates
save two were increases.

Quaestio · Oct 20, 2019

Tetron said:
The important part of this article is that this is only relevant to the data set of the last 140 years. If one examines prior to this time period one can see that this is far from the hottest temperature ever recorded, it is simply the hottest temperature recorded after the mini ice ace which is to be expected. Given we are leaving an unusually cold period of time temperature would be expected to rebound. I have provided a link to the IPCC report that discusses how the current temperatures are still below those seen during the last 2000 years. In particular the figure on page 202 of the report shows how prior to the dip caused by the mini ice age the global temperature was higher then it is currently.
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf

LOL! Your link was to the 1st IPCC report from 1990. That schematic was based on Lamb's 1965 Central England temperature reconstruction. It wasn't global.

And scientists know a hell of lot more now about paleoclimate than they did 30 years ago or 55 years ago

Current global average temperatures are NOT "still below those seen during the last 2000 years"

eg, this is a study using 692 proxies from 648 locations around the world. It was just published in July in Nature Geoscience.

Consistent multidecadal variability in global temperature reconstructions and simulations over the Common Era | Nature Geoscience

Here's another study also published in July this year

"No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era"
No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era | Nature

BTW, People who say that the current warming is just "rebounding" from the "little ice age" show they don't have a clue about climate history and factors that cause the climate to change.

Buzz · Oct 20, 2019

Steve Case said:
From your quote above:

These occasional corrections ...

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

Maybe you didn't look at the stats I posted:

Number of Changes to GISSTEMP's LOTI for 2019:
Jan Feb Mar Apr -May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
843 370 481 633 1359 566 281 400 674

That goes on every month. I wouldn't call 674 corrections to 1600 entries occasional.

I wouldn't call it occasional either. That's why I called it frequent adjustments.

So... you didn't even bother to check out and read the links I provided. Did you? Because if you had you would have seen the full context of the quote you are laughing at and known that it was about changes to the raw data.

Steve Case said:
Here's what those corrections look like when plotted out: (Do you see a pattern?)

Two things... First, the data in this graph doesn't appear to match your listed sources. Or at least the one that actually works. And second, these adjustments are actually so small that they don't change much. It certainly isn't enough to cause NASA to change any of their conclusions about AGW.

Steve Case said:
Here's how those corrections have affected the trend over the last 22 years:

Here are the data sources for the second chart.
1997 Data and the 2019 data

And here we have a prime example of denialist cherry-picking of data to get the results they want. Try this same comparison using NASA's first version of their data set compared to their latest version 4 and I am fairly certain it would show a decrease in the trend.

Steve Case said:
If you follow the 1997 link you will find that it says:

Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /Data/GISTEMP/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt on this server.
Apache/1.3.12 Server at NASA GISS: NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies Port 80

That wasn't the case a few months ago. I assume the climate mafia has gotten
to the folks who run the WayBack Machine. Well OK maybe there's a more
prosaic reason but like all things with a Climate Mafia connection, it looks fishy.

It would not surprise me one bit to find out that NASA restricted this data because of people exactly like you who use their data to mislead the public. It would be different if you actually had something more substantial than "it looks fishy". Your main problem is that that is all you really ever have.

Steve Case said:
Yes the changes are made because "new" data affects the 1951-1980 base period.
That means the every month they are going back and changing the base period.
Really?

So what? Can you show us all how much that change is and if it really matters? I doubt it.

Steve Case said:
Just this last month they found enough 40+ year old data that was wrong
and required correction? And that it just happened that all the resulting adjustments
prior to 1968 save one were negative, and all of the adjustments for the later dates
save two were increases.

Oh yes... Back to that point you made that prompted me to quote you. I went and looked at your two links and what do you know. You are wrong again...

From your Way Back link:

And from NASA"s recent up-date:

So... just looking at 2019 there were negative adjustments to the first 7 months of the year and only one increase in the same year. As usual, you don't know what you're talking about.

:lamo

PIPEWRENCH · Oct 20, 2019

Media_Truth said:
Looks like 2019 is going to shape up to be the 2nd hottest ever on record. When will the deniers start admitting to reality?

So this is the hottest September in 4+ billion years. I have to say not a chance.

Steve Case · Oct 20, 2019

Buzz said:
I wouldn't call it occasional either. That's why I called it frequent adjustments.

That's right, it's frequent probably about 100,000 corrections/adjustments since 1997

Buzz said:
So... you didn't even bother to check out and read the links I provided. Did you?
Because if you had you would have seen the full context of the quote you are laughing
at and known that it was about changes to the raw data.

This time around I didn't visit that page. I've seen it before, it's incomplete.

Buzz said:
Two things... First, the data in this graph doesn't appear to match your listed sources.
Or at least the one that actually works.

I save files from GISS so I had the one that didn't work the other day.
I just wanted to make sure I had the correct link.

Buzz said:
And second, these adjustments are actually so small that they don't change much.
It certainly isn't enough to cause NASA to change any of their conclusions about AGW.

They changed the slope from 0.75°C per century to 1°C per century.

Buzz said:
And here we have a prime example of denialist cherry-picking of data to get the results they want.

Finding the oldest record and comparing it to the most recent record isn't cherry picking.

Buzz said:
Try this same comparison using NASA's first version of their data set compared to their
latest version 4 and I am fairly certain it would show a decrease in the trend.

I compared GISS Land Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI) from 1997 with the current version.
You don't seem to like that. Too bad.

Buzz said:
It would not surprise me one bit to find out that NASA restricted this data
because of people exactly like you who use their data to mislead the public.

Knowing how the data has changed over time isn't misleading. It's shining
the light of day on what's going on. You can argue about the reasons for
the ~100,000 changes, but you can't change the fact that they have occurred.

Buzz said:
It would be different if you actually had something more substantial than "it looks fishy".

It does look fishy. Nearly everything climate science does seems to look fishy.
It mostly doesn't add up. If anything, today's weather/climate seems to more
mild than it was 90 years ago.

Buzz said:
Your main problem is that that is all you really ever have.

Will Rodgers said, "All I know is just what I read in the papers."
And I guess he never met Dr. Michael Mann.

Buzz said:
So what? Can you show us all how much that change is and if it really matters? I doubt it.

Read what it says on the second graph. It was 0.75°C in 1997 and today it's 1°C

Buzz said:
Oh yes... Back to that point you made that prompted me to quote you.
I went and looked at your two links and what do you know. You are wrong again...

Thanks for doing that. For some reason it didn't work the other day.

Buzz said:
So... just looking at 2019 there were negative adjustments to the first 7 months of the year
and only one increase in the same year. As usual, you don't know what you're talking about.

Over all, as the first graph shows there is a pattern. The changes made from August 2019 to
September 2019 were exceptionally skewed. They are as I said.

jimbo · Oct 20, 2019

Frigidweirdo said:
Yes, it's impossible to say what temperatures would have been like.

Yes, temperatures are rising. But is this natural? If we look at data from the 100,000 year cycle, we see temperatures rising to HIGHER than the currently are, then a combination of things then leads to a massive drop in temperatures. Is this what is happening?

Can we stop the devastating effects of climate change? These effects happen on a regular basis, every 100,000 years or so. Perhaps this is the Earth's way of dealing with problems.

The bottom line, though is that the earth has been warming/cooling over billions of years. We are either in the beginning of, the middle of, or the end of, either a warming or cooling cycle. Today's temperature is certainly not the warmest or coolest. Man had little to do with it.

Frigidweirdo · Oct 20, 2019

jimbo said:
The bottom line, though is that the earth has been warming/cooling over billions of years. We are either in the beginning of, the middle of, or the end of, either a warming or cooling cycle. Today's temperature is certainly not the warmest or coolest. Man had little to do with it.

Yes, however, the same question applies to both sides. What should the temperatures be right now?

Has man had an impact or not?

Simple fact is we can't answer this question. Doesn't mean you're right, doesn't mean they're right.

Just means a lot of people are misrepresenting this issue, on both sides.

Buzz · Oct 20, 2019

Steve Case said:
That's right, it's frequent probably about 100,000 corrections/adjustments since 1997

Which is normal for a temp record that recalculates the entire record every time new data is added.

Steve Case said:
This time around I didn't visit that page. I've seen it before, it's incomplete.

So you admit to laughing at something you didn't really know or understand?

Steve Case said:
I save files from GISS so I had the one that didn't work the other day.
I just wanted to make sure I had the correct link.

That's just it... you don't have the right link!!

Steve Case said:
They changed the slope from 0.75°C per century to 1°C per century.

Only if you cherry-pick the years from 1950 to 1997. And I challenge you to find any time period where you can show a similar change. I'll bet you can't do it.

Steve Case said:
Finding the oldest record and comparing it to the most recent record isn't cherry picking.

That is not what you did. There are older records than the one you used that just covered 1950 to 1997.

Steve Case said:
I compared GISS Land Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI) from 1997 with the current version.
You don't seem to like that. Too bad.

Yes... you cherry-picked the one comparison that most confirms your bias. Congrats!!

Steve Case said:
Knowing how the data has changed over time isn't misleading. It's shining
the light of day on what's going on. You can argue about the reasons for
the ~100,000 changes, but you can't change the fact that they have occurred.

I'm not denying that there have been numerous changes. What I disagree with is you claiming it is "fishy" without any real proof or even evidence that there is anything wrong with this fact. Just calling it "fishy" doesn't prove anything.

Steve Case said:
It does look fishy. Nearly everything climate science does seems to look fishy.
It mostly doesn't add up. If anything, today's weather/climate seems to more
mild than it was 90 years ago.

Really? Seems milder that 90 years ago? Were you around 90 years ago??

:lamo

Come on Steve... you need to come up with something better than that.

Steve Case said:
Read what it says on the second graph. It was 0.75°C in 1997 and today it's 1°C

I was talking about the base period changing and not the trend line.

Steve Case said:
Thanks for doing that. For some reason it didn't work the other day.

Thanks for what? Proving you wrong? O.K...

Steve Case said:
Over all, as the first graph shows there is a pattern. The changes made from August 2019 to
September 2019 were exceptionally skewed. They are as I said.

Wow! you don't really deal in reality, do you??

Face it, Steve. You claimed this update's adjustments were all up except for two after 1968 and I have shown 7 that were all negative while just one positive in just 2019. You were wildly WRONG!! Are you completely unable to admit this?

Quaestio · Oct 21, 2019

Buzz said:
I wouldn't call it occasional either. That's why I called it frequent adjustments.

So... you didn't even bother to check out and read the links I provided. Did you? Because if you had you would have seen the full context of the quote you are laughing at and known that it was about changes to the raw data.

Two things... First, the data in this graph doesn't appear to match your listed sources. Or at least the one that actually works. And second, these adjustments are actually so small that they don't change much. It certainly isn't enough to cause NASA to change any of their conclusions about AGW.

And here we have a prime example of denialist cherry-picking of data to get the results they want. Try this same comparison using NASA's first version of their data set compared to their latest version 4 and I am fairly certain it would show a decrease in the trend.

It would not surprise me one bit to find out that NASA restricted this data because of people exactly like you who use their data to mislead the public. It would be different if you actually had something more substantial than "it looks fishy". Your main problem is that that is all you really ever have.

So what? Can you show us all how much that change is and if it really matters? I doubt it.

Oh yes... Back to that point you made that prompted me to quote you. I went and looked at your two links and what do you know. You are wrong again...

From your Way Back link:

View attachment 67266627

And from NASA"s recent up-date:

View attachment 67266628

So... just looking at 2019 there were negative adjustments to the first 7 months of the year and only one increase in the same year. As usual, you don't know what you're talking about.

:lamo

Climate Truthers like that just mindlessly regurgitate what they swallow on Tony Heller's conspiracy blog. They don't actually read the NASA GISS website or any of the published papers that explain any necessary non-climatic adjustments. They need to believe in a huge nefarious conspiracy and that NASA scientists are the "baddies". And that's exactly what Heller gives them.

They cant accept science and evidence that the feel may threaten their ideological beliefs.

Glitch · Oct 21, 2019

Quaestio said:
Climate Truthers like that just mindlessly regurgitate what they swallow on Tony Heller's conspiracy blog. They don't actually read the NASA GISS website or any of the published papers that explain any necessary non-climatic adjustments. They need to believe in a huge nefarious conspiracy and that NASA scientists are the "baddies". They cant accept science and evidence that the feel may threaten their ideological beliefs.

Actually, I downloaded my copy of NASA's GISS data in December 2008, before Obama had an opportunity to fiddle with the data to suit his Marxist ideology. So I know exactly how incomplete the data is in the early years, prior to 1930. For example, there is no data at all above 50°N latitude prior to 1915. Between 1880 and 1910 in particular record keeping was apparently very hit or miss. Some areas are missing entire months worth of data. However, having said that. I found that the data NASA was able to collect to be very accurate, verified through a number of different independent sources.

Quaestio · Oct 21, 2019

Glitch said:
Actually, I downloaded my copy of NASA's GISS data in December 2008, before Obama had an opportunity to fiddle with the data to suit his Marxist ideology. So I know exactly how incomplete the data is in the early years, prior to 1930. For example, there is no data at all above 50°N latitude prior to 1915. Between 1880 and 1910 in particular record keeping was apparently very hit or miss. Some areas are missing entire months worth of data. However, having said that. I found that the data NASA was able to collect to be very accurate, verified through a number of different independent sources.

"Obama fiddled with the data to suit his Marxist ideology"? Gosh! It's a huge Marxist conspiracy right? You guys have no idea how ridiculous and insane you sound. How did you make room for the Marxists with all the Commies and dust bunnies under your bed?

Have you ever actually read this NASA GISTEMP page and all the links?

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP v4)

PoS · Oct 21, 2019

PIPEWRENCH said:
So this is the hottest September in 4+ billion years. I have to say not a chance.

We only have about 40 years or so of accurate meteorological data. The rest of it is a sort of "fill in the blanks" using proxies- which are just estimates of estimates. It's all just BS.

Glitch · Oct 21, 2019

Quaestio said:
"Obama fiddled with the data to suit his Marxist ideology"? Gosh! It's a huge Marxist conspiracy right? You guys have no idea how ridiculous and insane you sound. How did you make room for the Marxists with all the Commies and dust bunnies under your bed?

Have you ever actually read this NASA GISTEMP page and all the links?

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP v4)

Actually, Obama's illegal EPA Endangerment Finding in December 2009, proves it was no conspiracy.

Glitch · Oct 21, 2019

PoS said:
We only have about 40 years or so of accurate meteorological data. The rest of it is a sort of "fill in the blanks" using proxies- which are just estimates of estimates. It's all just BS.

It depends on the geographical location, of course, but I found that temperature records after 1930 are largely complete. They may miss a day or two in February 1937 in Chicago, for example, but they are not missing weeks, months, and even years of data like they are prior to 1910. There is sufficient data to give us a snapshot of what the climate has been like within the US (obviously not globally) for at least 90 years.

According to the NASA GISS data I downloaded, there was a cooling period between 1880 and 1915, followed by a warming period between 1915 and 1945, followed by another cooling period between 1945 and 1980, followed by another warming period from 1980 until 2010 (although my NASA data stops at the end of 2008). If that trend continues then between 2010 and 2045 there should be another cooling period. NASA's data shows a overall temperature increase of 0.89°C and an overall temperature decrease of 0.38°C, resulting in a net temperature increase of 0.51°C between 1880 and 2008.

This is a very generalized trend for the US only (since all the NASA GISS data originates within the US), and not accurate enough to make temperature predictions since there are large portions of data missing particularly in the early years. It is okay for a generalization, we will probably see a 35-year cooling period until sometime in the mid-2040s. Then that will be followed by yet another 30-year warming period.

Then again, something could happen that changes everything.

Surface Detail · Oct 21, 2019

Quaestio said:
"Obama fiddled with the data to suit his Marxist ideology"? Gosh! It's a huge Marxist conspiracy right? You guys have no idea how ridiculous and insane you sound. How did you make room for the Marxists with all the Commies and dust bunnies under your bed?

Have you ever actually read this NASA GISTEMP page and all the links?

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP v4)

Hilarious! :lamo:lamo That sentence illustrates perfectly just how crazy these loons are! There really is no point in trying to reason with them.

Steve Case · Oct 21, 2019

Buzz said:
Face it, Steve. You claimed this update's adjustments were all up except for two after 1968 and I have shown 7 that were all negative while just one positive in just 2019. You were wildly WRONG!! Are you completely unable to admit this?

You're right, I got the sign wrong when I did the arithmetic for August and September.
I used August data minus September data instead of the other way around. I suffer
from confirmation bias too, I would have checked it out were it the other way around
and found my mistake. So thank you for finding it.

The number of changes comparing August and September remains the same.

The two graphs
https://i.postimg.cc/Hx7sZhkT/image.png
https://i.postimg.cc/x8FksFKC/image.png
are correct.

The link to the 1997 data doesn't work, I assumed your WayBack Machine link
was to the 1997 data when it was to the August 2019 data.

So why did you have to use the WayBack Machine to get the August data? Can
you think of some reason why GISSTEMP doesn't maintain previous editions of
their data for public scrutiny?

jimbo · Oct 21, 2019

Frigidweirdo said:
Yes, however, the same question applies to both sides. What should the temperatures be right now?

Has man had an impact or not?

Simple fact is we can't answer this question. Doesn't mean you're right, doesn't mean they're right.

Just means a lot of people are misrepresenting this issue, on both sides.

Who knows. Certainly not man. Temperature is what it is.

Left alone, in 20 million years humans will be gone. Climate will still be changing.

PIPEWRENCH · Oct 21, 2019

PoS said:
We only have about 40 years or so of accurate meteorological data. The rest of it is a sort of "fill in the blanks" using proxies- which are just estimates of estimates. It's all just BS.

I think there is legitimate science behind it. The problem is when there are so many facts, so many variables, and so many unknown causes easily numbering into the billions people can use the information to make any conclusion they wish.

Frigidweirdo · Oct 21, 2019

jimbo said:
Who knows. Certainly not man. Temperature is what it is.

Left alone, in 20 million years humans will be gone. Climate will still be changing.

Yes it will.

However the issue here is, are humans destroying the ability for humans to live on the planet?

My personal view is that the world is a place of balance.

Mao decided to kill all the birds, because the birds were eating the crops. Then they found the birds also ate the insects which then ate even more of the crops.

Too much sun, we die. Too little sun, we die.
Too much water, we die. Too little water, we die.

Balance. We're out of balance right now. People trying to get rich are destroying the world for everyone else.

PoS · Oct 21, 2019

Glitch said:
It depends on the geographical location, of course, but I found that temperature records after 1930 are largely complete. They may miss a day or two in February 1937 in Chicago, for example, but they are not missing weeks, months, and even years of data like they are prior to 1910. There is sufficient data to give us a snapshot of what the climate has been like within the US (obviously not globally) for at least 90 years.

According to the NASA GISS data I downloaded, there was a cooling period between 1880 and 1915, followed by a warming period between 1915 and 1945, followed by another cooling period between 1945 and 1980, followed by another warming period from 1980 until 2010 (although my NASA data stops at the end of 2008). If that trend continues then between 2010 and 2045 there should be another cooling period. NASA's data shows a overall temperature increase of 0.89°C and an overall temperature decrease of 0.38°C, resulting in a net temperature increase of 0.51°C between 1880 and 2008.

This is a very generalized trend for the US only (since all the NASA GISS data originates within the US), and not accurate enough to make temperature predictions since there are large portions of data missing particularly in the early years. It is okay for a generalization, we will probably see a 35-year cooling period until sometime in the mid-2040s. Then that will be followed by yet another 30-year warming period.

Then again, something could happen that changes everything.

Even if we say, we have 90 years of data, thats still too small of a sample for any practical use with regards to predicting what will happen next.

PIPEWRENCH said:
I think there is legitimate science behind it. The problem is when there are so many facts, so many variables, and so many unknown causes easily numbering into the billions people can use the information to make any conclusion they wish.

That's pretty much it in a nutshell. Proxy data is so nebulous that you can just add or subtract a few variables here and there until it shows something that will confirm your pre-existing conclusions.

Outlook · Oct 21, 2019

Bergslagstroll said:
Hottest September on record, after many other record hot month this year.

Following the hottest summer on record, 2019 continues to head for the history books. Last month was officially the hottest September on record, just slightly hotter (.04 degrees Fahrenheit) than the previous record-holder, September 2016.

Last month was 1.02 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the average September from 1981-2010 and about 1.2 degrees Fahrenheit above the preindustrial level, according to data released Friday by the Copernicus Climate Change Service, an organization that tracks global temperatures.

According to AFP, the organization is treating the two months as joint record-holders because the difference is negligible.

September follows a record-setting summer, which recorded the hottest June and July, and the second hottest August. This July was the hottest month on record since record-keeping began 140 years ago.

Climate Change: Earth just experienced its hottest September ever recorded - CBS News

There also 2014-2019 are set to become the warmest recorded five year period.

Five-year period ending 2019 set to be hottest on record

I figure we only have couple years left.
We have to eat the babies to reduce population.

Eriech · Oct 21, 2019

Media_Truth said:
Looks like 2019 is going to shape up to be the 2nd hottest ever on record. When will the deniers start admitting to reality?

Party like there's no tomorrow! The end is near.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

Earth just experienced its hottest September ever recorded

Buzz

Irritant

Lord of Planar

Lord of Planar

Steve Case

Quaestio

Buzz

Irritant

PIPEWRENCH

Steve Case

jimbo

Frigidweirdo

Well-known member

Buzz

Irritant

Quaestio

Glitch

Quaestio

PoS

Minister of Love

Glitch

Glitch

Surface Detail

Steve Case

jimbo

PIPEWRENCH

Frigidweirdo

Well-known member

PoS

Minister of Love

Outlook

Eriech