http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/weather/article6975867.ece
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- “falsely labeling”
- Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- Protesting Too Much Snow
- Glaciers Vs. The Hockey Stick
- CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- IPCC : Himalayan Glaciers Gone By 2035
- Deadly Cyclones And Arctic Sea Ice
- What About The Middle Part?
- “filled with racist remarks”
- Defacing Art Can Prevent Floods
- The Worst Disaster Year In History
- Harris Wins Pennsylvania
- “politicians & shills bankrolled by the fossil fuel industry”
- UN : CO2 Killing Babies
- Patriotic Clapper Misspoke
- New York Times Headlines
- Settled Science At The New York Times
- “Teasing Out” Junk Science
- Moving From 0% to 100% In Six Years
- “Only 3.4% of Journalists Are Republican”
- “Something we are doing is clearly not working”
- October 26, 1921
- Hillary To Defeat Trump By Double Digits
- Ivy league Provost Calls For Assassination
Recent Comments
- Disillusioned on CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- Disillusioned on “falsely labeling”
- Disillusioned on “falsely labeling”
- stewartpid on “falsely labeling”
- dm on Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- dm on CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- D. Boss on IPCC : Himalayan Glaciers Gone By 2035
- Robertvd on Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- arn on “falsely labeling”
- arn on “falsely labeling”
Deja Vu, but apparently not for Hansen
this was all predicted by Petoukhov-
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/press-releases/global-warming-could-cool-down-temperatures-in-winter.
My understanding is the article research was done before last winters cold, so it actually does count as a testable hypothesis rather than monday morning quarterbacking.
Although all short term models are going to be shots in the dark
More of that pathetic paper that was published in 2010 AFTER cold winters began.
Your understanding is wrong. The date is on it: “Petoukhov, V., and V. A. Semenov (2010)”
Get a life Tony Duncan!
Amino,
that is the date it was published.
I don’t know much about it, but I assume it takes some time for these papers to go from research to publication.
I remember reading somewhere that the research was from october 2009
http://eprints.ifm-geomar.de/8738/1/2009JD013568-pip.pdf
I did not find anything in my scanning of this that indicated using any information from 2009/10 winter. there are a couple of citations from 2009, but the paper focuses on previous conditions, mostly 2005/6. and the scenarios it pinnated ut seemed quite consistent.
If the research in the paper was done AFTER the beginning of 2010 I will acknowledge being completely wrong about this.
But please point out to me where the paper is fraudulent. and I assume that someone will publish proof of that very soon.
If the date of research IS before December 2009 I assume you will also admit to being completely wrong?
Wow Tony, your silliness is getting more profound. A climate model predicting weather. Would the model be a failure if the winter was warmer?
Similarity to 2010/11 winter despite the flip from strong El Nino to strong La Nina
By Joseph D’Aleo
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog
Tony Duncan,
2007/2008 was an epic fail for AGW predictions, so Petoukhov already had something to work from. The fact is we’ve been preached to for the last 20 years what would happen in the U.S. and Europe etc., and it didn’t happen as prophesied. Now they are back pedaling at Olympic speeds as if the public is going to fall for it again. We’re quite tired of this hypothesis that can never be falsified.
It isn’t just about short term “shot in the dark”, it is the inability to correctly model regional weather over any period of time.
So then this article is clearly fraudulent
Not the article but your conclusion
Deebee,
I don’t remember making a conclusion about the paper, and rereading the thread I don’t see any conclusion i made.
I SUGGESTED That if the paper was researched before last winter, then it was not making stuff up to fit what had just happened and as far as my limited understanding of the science goes, I didn’t see anything inaccurate in the paper.
Slimething. I didn’t know that the success or failure of ACC was based on yearly predictions or regional models? So what is it that has been predicted for 2010 that has not happened? (Oh, here we go with the 2nd hand Hansen quote)
Well TonuD:
That paper falsifies all the other papers and climate models that were previously used to claim ACC was an event to be concerned about and also wiped out all the previous work used in all the IPCC reports.
Either that article is fraudulent or all the other papers are, take your pick!
Mike,
Then it will be easy to publish an article that shows such fraud.
Amazing that one article can completely falsify ALL ACC articles before that.
In reading what I could understand of the paper it seemed to be saying that warmer air from late freezing arctic waters, changed wind patterns. All the math confused me though, so maybe that is where it contradicts all other published research from the IPCC.
I guess that means that the fraudsters will not be able to cite any previous research in future publications.
Boy, I want my Petoukhov number before it becomes common place. Erdos watch out!
Another interesting fact about January 2010 was that it was the warmest January on record in the UAH satellite record.
Tropospheric temperature and land temperature are different. UAH senses El Nino warmth before land temperature does. UAH does not measure surface temperature. It measures up high in the atmosphere. What was registered by UAH temperature was El Nino warmth. It is nothing unusual. This fact was covered at the time. You are bringing up nothing new. You are just rehashing the hackneyed propaganda about UAH temperature.
Turns out it’s even more impressive. January 2010 was actually the warmest monthly anomaly on record in the UAH satellite record fullstop, but it didn’t hold that record very long, being beaten by March 2010.
No doubt things are really heating up out there.
being beaten by March 2010.
More propaganda about how UAH is measured and how months happened to line up in the short history of UAH. This was addressed at the time. But you act like it is something that proves global warming now. You guys are relentless.
It completely debunks what is trying to be claimed here. You want to pretend that January 2010 was really cold for the globe.
But it was only really cold in some places.
Globally January 2010 was very warm. Global warming continues.
The negative Arctic Oscillation created a “warm” anomaly over an uninhabited region of Canada. Calling January a hot month is ludicrous. http://www.remss.com/data/msu/graphics/tlt/medium/global/ch_tlt_2010_01_anom_v03_2.png
Cthulhu:
What I think is really impressive about the January and March records from UAH is that someone like you puts any value in them when NASA claims they only need 150 years of satellite data to better understand global climate because all other methods are corrupted beyond usability. That was one of the purposes for launching the satellites. The other impressive thing about the records is all the heat they show leaving the biosphere that should have been trapped by GHGs closer to ground level if CAGW was happening.
You really need to take a closer look at where the heat has been during the last few years to be really impressed by your blind faith!
Sunday Night Football postponed till Tuesday night because of Snowmageddon II.
It’s the first time since 1932 that the NFL decided to call a game off on the same day of the game.
No, no, no, you’ve got it all wrong. Global warming will lead to mild winters and less snow across the northeastern US. A 2004 study by climate scientists has proved it –
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/oct2006/2006-10-04-03.asp
Read and learn. That’s not snow outside. That’s global warming.
Snowmageddon II is happening instead. Snowmageddon I was last year. So we can see winters are getting warmer with less snow—just like global warming scientists predicted. ;O)
Here’s what Piers Corbyn forecast on December 13
Piers said (Dec 13th): “The midwest has already had tremendous snow deluges around 10-12 December but ‘You ain’t seen nothing yet’ compared with what is going to hit NE USA including New York State in the period 25-31st December. This is likely to be one of the most significant snowfall/blizzard periods in NE & East USA for decades”.
http://www.weatheraction.com/displayarticle.asp?a=281&c=5
I just heard on the Weather Channel that this current storm in the NE could top the historic 1978 storm. 1978, back when “the consensus”, and the media, was talking about a coming ice age.
With respect to Mr. Corbyn, my first impression is that every blind chicken sometimes finds a piece of corn. What is his long term track record?