February average temperatures - disturbing

[metis]

You sound offended. That's the best feeling of all.

Did your version of "Christianity" teach you that?

 

[Heyo]

You sound offended. That's the best feeling of all.

Unfortunately, that is not the opinion of RF, otherwise I'd already helped you to being offended more than once.

 

[Shaul]

Even that statement is illogical since numerous scientific sources have concluded that it's largely higher CO2 and methane gas levels that is leading to most of the average temperature increases over the last century. Maybe do some research and check out NOAA, NASA, the NAS, Scientific American, etc. We are dealing with average temperatures, not some addition of daytime temperatures whereas an extra day somehow is to be added.

IOW, it's pretty much common sense how these averages have been correlated. If you can't even see that, well...

Even assuming this was true, that doesn't prove that the temperature rises specifically for Februaries were due to this causation. Assuming causation instead of association without proof is unscientific. IOW, using "common sense" as your basis of proof shows you are spouting unscientific prattle. If you can't even see that, well....

 

[metis]

Even assuming this was true, that doesn't prove that the temperature rises specifically for Februaries were due to this causation. Assuming causation instead of association without proof is unscientific. IOW, using "common sense" as your basis of proof shows you are spouting unscientific prattle. If you can't even see that, well....

One cannot use just one month's temperatures as a bellwether for the rest of the region or the world. I go 100% by the science-- you by whatever floats your little rubber ducky.

Maybe check out the sources I listed for you on my post #138 instead of just spouting more nonsense. You didn't respond to it but just came back and spewed out the above.

 

[Laniakea]

Did your version of "Christianity" teach you that?

Nope. Liberalism taught me that.

 

[metis]

Nope. Liberalism taught me that.

Since when is fascism "liberal"? Are you gonna praise Hitler like Trump has?

 

[Shaul]

One cannot use just one month's temperatures as a bellwether for the rest of the region or the world. I go 100% by the science-- you by whatever floats your little rubber ducky.

Maybe check out the sources I listed for you on my post #138 instead of just spouting more nonsense. You didn't respond to it but just came back and spewed out the above.

Yet more attempts at misdirection. The question to you was to provide evidence that leap years were considered by the OP. You continue to fail to do so. The question wasn't about green house gases. If any of the sources you mentioned can answer the question of whether the OP considered leap years in their calculations, provide the citation. You still haven't provided and evidence that having an additional day in February in leap years was considered in the OP graphics nor disproving the possibility that such could impact them.

 

[Laniakea]

Since when is fascism "liberal"? Are you gonna praise Hitler like Trump has?

If you believe liberals are fascists, I won't argue with you.

 

[metis]

If you believe liberals are fascists, I won't argue with you.

Why do I waste my time with such ignorance.

 

[Laniakea]

Why do I waste my time with such ignorance.

Beats me! I would suggest becoming educated so you won't have to waste time with it.

 

[metis]

Beats me! I would suggest becoming educated so you won't have to waste time with it.

ROFL!

 

[wellwisher]

"Experts have expressed shock at just how hot the oceans have been, especially the North Atlantic, which has set a new daily temperature record every day since March 5 last year, according to Brian McNoldy, a senior research associate at the University of Miami Rosenstiel School.

“At times, the records have been broken by margins that are virtually statistically impossible,” McNoldy told CNN.

Record ocean heat has significant global impacts. Not only is it dangerous for marine life but it also fuels extreme weather, including scorching heat waves, intense rainfall and ferocious hurricanes."

This tells me these records are not exclusively connected to the manmade assumptions, since they are beyond all the manmade models predictions. The extra and much of that assumed for manmade, may be due to mantle and sub crustal heat entering the oceans from the movement of the continental plates; ring of fire and other locations.

Most of the heat from the inner earth, goes into the deep oceans, and is not as obvious as the surface and atmospheric effects we can see from satellites. If you assume only the atmosphere, and real climate data exceeds expectations, a main variable is being ignored. A good model should be able to predict this. They do not have a good enough model; political bias.

If the we add heat from below the oceans, since hot water is less dense than cold water, the hot water, will rise. If we heat the ocean from the top; via atmosphere; CO2 assumptions, the surface of the ocean will get warmer, but since warmer water is less dense, it will float like a layer on top and not not heat the average ocean temperature, as much; almost no free convection. Being closer to the surface, some of the heat can radiate into space; maximized at the top surface due to that being the hottest ocean-atmosphere zone. But heat from the bottom, by being connected to rising water that would need to go miles to the surface, is 100% conserved, since it cannot convect downward to the hot inner earth.

We can do an experiment of two open pools and two heaters. One pool we will heat from the top; heating blanket, and the other we heat from the bottom; also heating blanket. The bottom heating scenario will have much better heat convection and will conserve more of the heat in the entire pool. If we then add a top heater to the bottom heater pool but leave the top heater pool alone, we can simulate what we see, by comparing the heat excess of the double heated.

I would shift NOAA resources away from A and more to O.

 

[metis]

This tells me these records are not exclusively connected to the manmade assumptions, since they are beyond all the manmade models predictions. The extra and much of that assumed for manmade, may be due to mantle and sub crustal heat entering the oceans from the movement of the continental plates; ring of fire and other locations.

Most of the heat from the inner earth, goes into the deep oceans, and is not as obvious as the surface and atmospheric effects we can see from satellites. If you assume only the atmosphere, and real climate data exceeds expectations, a main variable is being ignored. A good model should be able to predict this. They do not have a good enough model; political bias.

If the we add heat from below the oceans, since hot water is less dense than cold water, the hot water, will rise. If we heat the ocean from the top; via atmosphere; CO2 assumptions, the surface of the ocean will get warmer, but since warmer water is less dense, it will float like a layer on top and not not heat the average ocean temperature, as much; almost no free convection. Being closer to the surface, some of the heat can radiate into space; maximized at the top surface due to that being the hottest ocean-atmosphere zone. But heat from the bottom, by being connected to rising water that would need to go miles to the surface, is 100% conserved, since it cannot convect downward to the hot inner earth.

We can do an experiment of two open pools and two heaters. One pool we will heat from the top; heating blanket, and the other we heat from the bottom; also heating blanket. The bottom heating scenario will have much better heat convection and will conserve more of the heat in the entire pool. If we then add a top heater to the bottom heater pool but leave the top heater pool alone, we can simulate what we see, by comparing the heat excess of the double heated.

I would shift NOAA resources away from A and more to O.

You must believe that the vast majority of climate scientists are ignorant and/or dishonest dolts, right?