WTF?

mhaze states: " the data you rely on to maintain your beliefs is highly questionable."

I'm using the data that you directed me to so maybe it is your research skills that are questionable.

And don't forget that you agree with my beliefs about the upward trend in global warming.

"I'm using the data that you directed me to so maybe it is your research skills that are questionable."

See, now I don't know if WTF is just a monumental dill or just playing the clown to ignore evidence he doesn't want to be true.

The clown thinks that if I link to a page on a site that says something of interest then I must support everything on that site. Its the type of idiocy that thinks that if I link to an article in The Age then I must support everything put out by The Age. Moronosity reigns supreme.

"And don't forget that you agree with my beliefs about the upward trend in global warming."

And then I draw entirely different conclusions about that. The problem with many of the chicken littles of the climate debate is that they have no notion of proportion. We're warming therefore catastrophe is imminent is the childish level of their thinking. Really quite pathetic.

The Age newspaper is biased against local knowledge of evidence about ocean phenomena linked to marine animal starvation and ocean water quality and weather.
That bias has prevented quality communication of new information involving evidence of substance and impact and consequences and solutions to preventable humanitarian and economic catastrophe.
Therein is evidence The Age newspaper is presently not a reliable source of news and information that may indicate early and due solutions.

N.B.
I am aware of defamation law.
There is evidence to prove my opinion above is of substance and true beyond reasonable doubt.

P.S
Contribution on this forum would do well to stop using each other. Then concentrate on due discussion.

.... to stop abusing each other.....

WTF?

mhaze - I am not talking about The Age.

I am talking about U.S. National Centers for Environmental Studies and their mission is "NCEI provides environmental data, products, and services covering the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun to drive resilience, prosperity, and equity for current and future generations."

So everything is on topic unlike your irrelevant Age comparison.

mhaze you previously stated "It would be the height of naivety to think that the warming would be uniform around the world."

Yet you naively direct us to a webpage that contains - information about just one part of the world and then use that as evidence to support your point of view - about warming.

And later: "So one place warming more or less than another place is really a mere curiosity..."

This is why I refer to your sources conclusion that:
"All six major global temperature datasets used for analysis in the report agree that the last eight years (2015–22) were the eight warmest on record. The annual global mean surface temperature has increased at an average rate of 0.14 to 0.16 of a degree F (0.08 to 0.09 of a degree C) per decade since 1880, and at a rate more than twice as high since 1981."

"All six major global temperature datasets used for analysis in the report agree that the last eight years (2015–22) were the eight warmest on record. The annual global mean surface temperature has increased at an average rate of 0.14 to 0.16 of a degree F (0.08 to 0.09 of a degree C) per decade since 1880, and at a rate more than twice as high since 1981."

WTF, by constantly quoting that you show me three things:

1. You have no idea how anomalies work
2. You have no idea how these databases are constructed
3. You've completely misunderstood the point of the paper I linked which shows that these databases overstate the warming

"Yet you naively direct us to a webpage that contains - information about just one part of the world".

I'll try one more time and then if you still can't get it I have to conclude this is either too hard for you to comprehend or you're determined to pretend you don't get because the conclusions are so detrimental to your case.

The USCRN data isn't important because of what it shows about the US record. Its important because of what it shows about the data from pristine rural sites as compared to data from corrupted urban sites ie that the data using corrupted urban sites overstates the warming by a wide margin. It seems fairly obvious and easily understood as far as I can see, but if you can't get it....well so be it.