What percentage of Earth's surface area is represented by the CONUS?

I think the point Raisin was making was that there had been an apparent upward adjustment of the US temperature data. I had intended to answer this question but it was resolved before I got back to it.

To cite the US record as being representative of the whole planet would clearly be wrong. ConUS, along with some relatively small parts of Eastern Europe, have actually shown the least amount of warming of any country in the world.

There have been several attempts in the past where certain people have tried to use the US record as a representation of the whole world, but that’s just what some sceptics do. Oddly, I can’t recall ever having seen someone take data from a region that has warmed significantly and then try and extend that to represent the whole planet.

To answer your specific question:

Total surface area of ConUS: 8,080, 464 km²

Total surface area of the world: 510,072,000 km²

%age of Earth that is ConUS: 1.584%

Total land area of ConUS: 7,663,942 km²

Total land surface area of the world: 148,940,000 km²

%age of land on Earth that is ConUS: 5.126%

I really have no idea why you are pursuing this. Goddard was simply showing how US temperature data has been "adjusted". He makes no mention of global temperatures and doesn't allude to that at all.

And frankly, in 2012 when there was a US heatwave and NOAA came with that year being the warmest on record (for the US), I didn't see any alarmists complaining that it was only 2% of the globe or that it was only one year.

Shakespeare had a term for what you are doing here. You're homework is to figure that one out.

1.58 according to Wikipedia. Rasin Cane seems to be rather capable as sceptics go. I'm sure he or she must be aware of this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contiguous_United_Sta...

What I would like to know is, why is it only the US that this seems to apply to? What about Australia or Europe, for example? Also, what were the reasons for the adjustments? It is possible that there where good reasons why it was done.

Unless they can show this was done globally and without reason, I won't be taking this too seriously.

Yes it is a small portion. If the published records are showing a colder US and a warmer globe, your point would be valid. But if the adjustments being made to the US record are at odds with what the stations are saying, then it calls into question the credibility of the people producing the records. The US has the most reliable temperature collection as well.

Raisin Cane is a fast learner, for an anti-science kook. He already has the YA "high" level con routine down:

1. Peruse Goddard, Nova, Wattsup, and/or other such anti-science recycling depots

2. Copy something (highly optionally: not one used several times here this week already).

3. (Low-level deniers skip or substitute 3a: pitifully misunderstand) Slightly alter / simplify / tailor for YA

4. Formulate as fake question

5. Paste

6. (Optional) BS, befog, twist, contort, evade, deny, accuse

7. Pick another anti-science kook's post as BA

But, like all anti-science liar-deniers here, he sooner or later trips and fall in his own BS. Here he guffaws ??? about suggesting "that our measurement of glacier melt over the past 100 years is more precise than our measurement of temperature over the same time period." There is, of course, no need to "suggest" what any 4 year old can see from comparing 19th and 21st century pictures of almost any subpolar glacier across the whole planet. Oops. Of course he is not a "scientist." Don't think he has ever even pretended to be (unlike the resident Abiotic Oil Geologist who has more BAs in the section than anyone else active here except Trevor). Raisin Expel CO2 has a PhD in Statistics from Podunk U (or some other place where the Physics and Chemistry faculty specialize in "Alarmism"), and way too much free time which he appears to be using here to become the 188th lockstep should-be follower of Billy-Jose.

Raisin Cain is playing a game of recycling standard Denier questions and then crying “foul” because he did not explicitly state something that – as you point out – is understood to be implied by both Deniers and those who accept AGW.

He did the same thing here:

>> To the insulting warmers, if you care about truth at all, you may note the following.

1.) I have not stated that the corrections were incorrect. I have shown a link to nasa.gov, so surely you are not suggesting that this is a poor website.<<

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=201402...

It’s sort of like flopping in soccer.

It was pretty plain that he was talking about Hansen et al changing US climate history. You may think he was hiding something, but it was like the first thing I read. I'm pretty sure it was right at the top of the page in the heading.

Much of alarmists evidence comes from NASA and Mann. Bristlecones in NA allowed Mann to manipulate world temperature proxies by using weird statistical algorithms that exaggerated the exaggerations to put it simply. Mann had a real talent for exaggeration. Although the Bristlecone proxy data was discounted and subsequently reduced, I am not comfortable giving the original exaggerator free reign to "correct" his original junk science but apparently alarmists never have a problem with that sort of thing and that was generally my point. I am sure if Rasin left the answer open longer I would have been pummeled by TDs like the Seahawks shellacking of the defenseless Broncos.

IMO, there appears to have been general warming for 300 years since the end of the LIA. If you would have shown Glacier Park a thousand years ago instead of 1930s, it would be more revealing.

Global average temperatures are elusive. NASA knows this and have plainly admitted this. Pinning down an actual, accurate, and definitive temperature is next to impossible. This is why the Global Warming Alarmists like you are wrong in the first place.

The temperatures we currently use are very far from accurate and only account for 134 years of earth's temperature history. Pinning down the temps from previous times is also elusive since science itself can not find a way to accurately measure it.

Climate Science says that the Planet has warmed no more than 0.8C in those 134 years and recent research shows that humans account for no more than 35% of that increase which equals 0.28C at most. That's the science of it. Anything more catastrophic from CO2 emissions is plain nonsense. Thanks for ringing your alarm bells so loudly! People are becoming use to it and deaf tone t your ridiculous manipulation of science.

Enjoy!!! :-)

Thanks for playing their game!!!

goddard is not a climatologist, he is an electrical engineer who cherry picks data to suit his denier agenda

I really don't care about how much land area it covers. I was asking a question about the US. Are you actually so religious in your belief of you pet theory that you would suggest that one cannot look at a specific location's temperature record???

And BTW, I made no egregious error. Both of those graphes were created by NASA. So where is the error?

Further, let's talk about the US temperature records, shall we? Last time I checked, the US is no third world country. Neither is it so sparsely populated that recording temps is unnecessary. In fact, if I were to point to a large land mass where the temperature data can be trusted, it would be the US.

So tell me this. I would like you to point to a land mass the size of CONUS, whose temperature data can be assumed to be more accurate, than that of CONUS???

Are you actually going to try to tell me that Russia is better at accurately recording temperature data than the US??? Or maybe you think Europe with all of the various countries and all of the different standards even through the cold war?? Maybe the high tech country of China. They had some awesome technology in the 60s. Australia??? Africa, perhaps??? OHHH I know. South America.

You seem to forget that you are not basing your predictions, nor your scary exponential warming upon 40 years of data. You are basing it on the very same observed with a thermometer data points collected for more than 100 years. If you are suggesting that I cannot question the accuracy of that data, then it is YOU sir, who is not a scientist.

Edit:

Did I say that CONUS represent the warming of the entire planet??? Nope. What concerns me is the accuracy of the data. We are talking about corrections of 0.5 degrees for a whole year's average temperature over CONUS. That indicates a large degree of uncertainty that I do not see reflected in error bars nor how warmers like yourself address the issue of climate change.

Realistically, you are talking about the CONUS increasing by 0.8 degrees over the last 100 years. You have corrections that modify to the point of 0.5 degrees and you are using this past data (in part) to model out 100 years.

Do you really not see my problem with the claimed certainty???

You want me to accept the accuracy of the past records to the point of being able to track temp changes as small as 0.8 degrees over 100 years, when the most accurately kept records (the US) requires corrections to the tune of 0.5 degrees???

Not only do you want me to accept this, but you want me to accept it so much that you can use that data to model out 100 years in the future.

Not only do you want me to accept this, but you want me to accept that your amazing 100 year models are accurate with an SD of around 1.5 degrees!!!

Not only do you want me to accept this, but you want me to so fervently accept it, that we base public policies costing trillions of dollars upon accepting all of this as true.

Call me crazy, but when I pull out my checkbook and write a check for a trillion dollars, I like to have some certainty. Maybe even kick the tires and make sure I am not getting a lemon.

I know. Its totally crazy. I should just nod and agree, but I'm stubborn like that.

If hindsight is 20/20 and our hindsight of past temps has a margin of error of 0.5 degrees, then tell me the accuracy of our view through the crystal ball of computer modeling? My guess is that it is a little more blurry than the 20/20 of hindsight.

Edit:

The glaciers? Are you asking why the glaciers that have been melting since the last ice age are still melting??? ORRR are you trying to suggest that our measurement of glacier melt over the past 100 years is more precise than our measurement of temperature over the same time period???