[rockdoc123]

That global warming is real scientifically proven and the CO2 released by human activity is the major reason that it is happening;

Yes. I understand that.

completely unrelated to what was being discussed here...not sure why you want to draw attention to some significant comprehension problems on your part. Its a bit like quoting high school basketball scores to argue about the viability of electric cars...interesting but completely unrelated and to be honest, inane.

So apparently you all think I've made this up (just go and get the US climate history network data and plot it yourself) but are you going to argue that the US Global Change Research Program also made it up?

USGCRP, 2017: Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume I [Wuebbles, D.J., D.W. Fahey, K.A. Hibbard, D.J. Dokken, B.C. Stewart, and T.K. Maycock (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, 470 pp., doi: 10.7930/J0J964J6.

Here are two plots from that study clearly showing the higher heat waves in the 1930's than recent.





and this has been presented numerous times in the published literature. Example:

Peterson et al, 2013. Monitoring and understanding changes in heat waves, cold waves, floods and droughts in the United States, State of Knowledge. Bulletin of Amer Met Soc., pp 821 – 834
DOI:10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00066.1



And with that I'm done with the topic.

[clif]

well croc doc since the title of the thread IS global warming, NOT USA warming, I just returned to the topic at hand.......

as fer yer rant, buh bye

[dissident]

The difference between the two graphs is

croc docs graph are JUST the US

Where as dissident's graph is the whole planet......

something croc doc seems to hope we miss,

I wonder why

Although your point is generally valid, the graph I posted is actually for the USA:

https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/ ... emperature

This figure shows how annual average temperatures in the contiguous 48 states have changed since 1901. Surface data come from land-based weather stations. Satellite measurements cover the lower troposphere, which is the lowest level of the Earth’s atmosphere. “UAH” and “RSS” represent two different methods of analyzing the original satellite measurements. This graph uses the 1901–2000 average as a baseline for depicting change. Choosing a different baseline period would not change the shape of the data over time.

Data source: NOAA, 2016

[rockdoc123]

Although your point is generally valid, the graph I posted is actually for the USA:

but still not maximum temperature which is where the argument was centered. So good job of talking about something unrelated to the argument. In the future would be useful to tell everyone what is plotted as well.

[Keith_McClary]

The raw data is available at NOAA but it amalgamates data from the global network GHCN which is the dataset that almost all of the main temperature indices (HadCrut, Best etc) use in one manner or another. The calculation of average is done through a gridding process on their computers and is not a simple average as it takes into account all of the stations which recorded daily highs and lows and have had corrections applied to them. Those overlapping grids are then averaged in the NOAA dataset by State or Region etc. The argument can be made that this method ignores distance between stations but for the US this is much less important due to the closeness and vast number of station measurements used. As such the grid chosen is small and the error due to distance affects is much less than it might be where stations are further apart such as parts of South America, Africa and Europe. In those situations, kriging is used by most researchers to arrive at averages. A good explaination of the methodology appears in

Rohde, R et al, 2013. Berkeley Earth Temperature Averaging Process. Geoinfor Geostt: an Overview 2013, 1:2. http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/gigs.1000103

Yes, I know NOAA and Berkeley Earth do not use a simple average, but they did not make the graph you posted.

What is the source of your graph?

[Graeme]

Biofuels Could Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions By 96%

There is nothing inherently wrong with internal combustion engines. The problem is the fuels we use to run them emit billions of tons of greenhouse gases every year, gases which cause the Earth to get hotter. The byproducts from burning gasoline or diesel fuel account for almost a third of all US greenhouse gas emissions according to the EPA.

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/12/01/biofuels-could-reduce-greenhouse-gas-emissions-by-96/

[clif]

What is the source of your graph?

Yes croc doc, what IS the source?

[rockdoc123]

Yes croc doc, what IS the source?

Oh FFS.....the data is all there for you to plot whatever it is you want to potentially show me wrong. Go for it. And if you don't know how to deal with the actual data go to the instructions on the site. Apparently you think you are smarter than everyone else so have at it.

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/ ... 52j.tar.gz

It is somewhat telling that you are more interested in somehow trying to discredit people rather than actually arguing something scientifically credible. But go ahead plot to your heart's content and prove me wrong.
Oh, do I have to point to the official USGRP report again? Are you arguing that all those scientists are wrong? Those plots I posted replicate exactly what I was saying.
Can I suggest if you have nothing to offer here of substance you just go away?

[clif]

I guess he has NO actual source for the graph .........

otherwise posting the link for it would be sooooooooooooooo easy

but for some strange reason he cannot or will not.

[Keith_McClary]

Blast from the past:
"National Action Plan for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions", 1993
https://books.google.ca/books?id=5eyDD5Eqd4IC