Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- “records going back to 1961”
- Analyzing Rainfall At Asheville
- Historical Weather Analysis With Visitech
- “American Summers Are Starting to Feel Like Winter”
- Joker And Midnight Toker
- Cheering Crowds
- Understanding Flood Mechanisms
- Extreme Weather
- 70C At Lisbon
- Grok Defending The Climate Scam
- “Earlier Than Usual”
- Perfect Correlation
- Elon’s Hockey Stick
- Latest Climate News
- “Climate dread is everywhere”
- “The Atmosphere Is ‘Thirstier.’”
- Skynet Becomes Self Aware
- “We Have To Vote For It So That You Can See What’s In It”
- Diversity Is Our Strength
- “even within the lifetime of our children”
- 60 Years Of Progress in London
- The Anti-Greta
- “a persistent concern”
- Deadliest US Tornado Days
- The Other Side Of The Pond
Recent Comments
- conrad ziefle on “records going back to 1961”
- Disillusioned on “records going back to 1961”
- Mike on Analyzing Rainfall At Asheville
- Mike on Analyzing Rainfall At Asheville
- Mike on “records going back to 1961”
- John Francis on “records going back to 1961”
- Gordon Vigurs on “records going back to 1961”
- conrad ziefle on Analyzing Rainfall At Asheville
- Disillusioned on Analyzing Rainfall At Asheville
- Disillusioned on “American Summers Are Starting to Feel Like Winter”
Every time I cite the rss satellite data as evidence of the lack of warming in recent years, I get doomsday fanatics jumping all over me that I should be using UAH data. I should be because of what Spencer said here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/07/more-on-the-divergence-between-uah-and-rss-global-temperatures/
UAH still shows a slight trend.
Oddly, only UAH shows a positive trend throughout the record. About 2001, it is insignificant, but that is the lowest.
RSS is negative, though insignificant, from 1997.
The other data sources go to zero around 2001.
In the BAMS “State of The Climate, 2008” IPCC climate models were tested against temperature on a decadal basis for 10 years. The scientists testing the models state:
“Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the
95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate. ”
We are now at 15.66 years of near zero/negative trend depending on temperature data used. If this isn’t grounds for a debate as to the accuracy of IPCC climate models then I’m at a loss to understand why science is even involved in climate change.
Baring in mind that computer models have never been a good method of proving a theory. The variation in different model’s output, and their lack of correlation with reality, is not surprising.
Bloody murder alarmists prefer James Hansen data, you know, the pretend warming trend data set.
i.e., GISTemp
You even started at a low of La Nina before the 1998 Super El Nino! Why not go from Ell Nino peak to El Nino peak, 1998 to 2012. It would be fair and it would show even more cooling.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998.2/plot/rss/from:1998.2/trend
And something odd is happening with the El Nino forming in the pacific right now. Cold water is accumulating off the coast of South America and it seems to be interacting with below average SST’s in the North Atlantic as well. Could be why some dynamical models are showing that the El Nino is going to fad away. Whatever happens will be interesting to watch.
Meant to write North Pacific…
It also looks like cool water is just starting to forming under the cooling equatorial water.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/sub_surf_mon.gif
Thanks! Also keep an eye on:
http://www.ecmwf.int/products/forecasts/d/charts/oras4/reanalysis/sections/xzmaps/1m!1m!201203!Anomaly!Temperature!/
Although I suspect you do anyway…