98% of the earth's surface is hotter now than at any time in the past 2000 years

Obviously.

 

How hot is that ???

 

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, 20161
Web update: August 2016

The continental U.S. has been warming and it is hotter now than it was when the data used to make the graph in the OP was taken.

 

Would that include every government that funds climate research? In that case, you would reject all scientific research on the climate except that which might be
funded by oil, gas, and the coal industry..

 

Prove it.

 

Which government funds research on the benefits of global warming and funds economic analyses showing global cost benefit analyses ?? Which government advocates less government control of energy policies ??

What research is funded by oil, gas, and coal ??

 

Who is claiming that the earth is not warming ?? Why did you not point out that the temperature scale is in degrees Fahrenheit ??

Try reading your own chart. What are the warming rates ?? Why are you mixing different ways of measuring on the same chart ??

And the satellite data confirm the USCRN data that the good Doctor posted ?? Notice that ?? Compare the time frames.

 

Interesting how you could have discussed the thread topic, but you went for sleazy off-topic trolling instead. It's not surprising, however, being that sleazy trolling is the only thing you've ever been capable of.

And we know why. You can't discuss the science, as all of the science flatly contradicts your cult's sacred scripture. Being how honesty isn't an option for religious fanatics, the only other option open to you is trolling.

Are you paid to troll, or do you do it purely out of fanatical ideological devotion to your authoritarian cult?

 

The fake news story again? You're persistent with your fraud, I'll give you that. That will earn you big brownie points with the cult. Everyone else, not so much.

The good news is that your reputation was already so low, this latest fraud of yours can't push it any lower.

 

More outright fiction on your part, but what else is new?

Needless to say, you won't give any references, but you'll say you gave references. That game grows old. I think everyone gets it by now. You have no references for any of the bizarre things you claim. They're just religious beliefs on your part, stuff you read on conspiracy websites.

Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, ....

Show us the natural causes behind the stratospheric cooling, the increase in backradiation, and the decrease in outgoing longwave in the GHG emission bands.

What? You mean there are no natural explanations for those directed observed things? That would mean your "It's natural" theory went down the toilet.

AGW theory is the only theory that explains all of the observed data. Thus, it is the accepted theory. If you want to dethrone it, you need to come up with a better theory that explains all the observed data. So far, deniers haven't even tried.

 

I've given you all my references. You ignore them,

 

Hot town summer in the city back of my neck gettin' dirty and gritty

Keep on pouring concrete and hot asphalt, keep on combusting, because there is no other choice.

 

Exactly. If you want to understand what global warming will feel like 200 years from now spend some time in a large city in whatever season you desire. Even Barrow Alaska shows urban heat island effects on it's temperature data.

349 Hinkel, K.M. (2003) Int. J. Climatology 23, 1889--‐1905.

 

No, I point out that your cult's bible -- a propaganda piece, and your sole source -- is making up stories about the papers it references. And you have no response.

In stark contrast, I provide links directly to the scientific papers, and text directly from the papers.

I'm honest about sources, and you're not.

 

I have given you many more than one source.

 

Really. And how do they know these effects were regional?

Do they have ice cores from the sahara?

 

I.E. wild ass guesses.

 

The USCRN graph shows F. on the left side and C. on the right. There also appears to be some smoothing of data on the my NOAA graph. The NOAA mixed different ways
of measuring on the same chart to show that there was more than 1 source to support the data. The bottom line is that this both graphs support the conclusion that the
continental U.S. has been hotter during the 2000's than it was during the late 20th century.

 

It is intellectually dishonest to mix different ways of measuring, Read "Hiding the Decline".

Very few dispute the fact that the earth has been warming after the end of the Little Ice Age.

And both charts show that there has been no heating in the 21st century.

 

Evaluating the data requires expert analysis and then it goes through a peer review process. I think that the proxy data was based on a very large study done in 2013 by
a large number of scientists. I think that the proxy data and the ice core data is put into a climate model to fill in the gaps. I am not sure on this

The regional temperature difference during both the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warming Anomaly, based mostly on proxy data, was great enough to arrive at
that conclusion that the warming was mostly regional; the temp. differences would have exceeded the error range on the proxy data. There was some degree of global warming during the Medieval
Warming Anomaly but the warming probably did not exceed the GMT of the mid-twentieth century. If you believe that the Medieval Warming Anomaly was primarily a global phenomenon comparable
to the late 20th century then there would have to be a logical explanation for that degree of global warming and there isn't any.

 

There isn’t any ??? No logical explanation ??? And you call yourself skeptical ???

 

Random numbers... Meaningless.

Satellites are not capable of measuring Earth's temperature since we do not know the emissivity of Earth.

It is not possible to measure Earth's temperature. We don't have near enough thermometers to even begin such a statistical analysis; the margin of error is far too high, since temperatures can easily vary by 20degF per mile.

 

There is no "the climate". Earth has numerous climates.

Define "climate change". Climate is not a quantifiable term. How can a climate "change", precisely?

 

I won't claim that the Earth is not warming, but I will not claim that it is warming, either. We simply do not know (and have no way of knowing) whether the Earth is warming, cooling, or staying the same temperature.

There is no satellite data. Satellites are incapable of measuring the Earth's temperature since we do not know the emissivity of Earth.

 

Inversion Fallacy. This applies to YOU, not to him.

We don't know whether it is warming, cooling, or staying the same.

Argument From Ignorance Fallacy.

Logic dethrones it. "Global Warming" has not been defined beyond a circular definition. Circular definitions do not work; they are meaningless.

Science dethrones it. No magick gas is capable of heating the Earth's surface. Heat does not flow from cold to hot; only from hot to cold. See the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

Mathematics dethrones it. We don't have near enough thermometers to even begin a statistical analysis of Earth's temperature. We would need upwards of 200 million thermometers that are uniformly spaced and simultaneously read by the same observer. Temperatures can easily vary by as much as 20degF per mile.