In a few months, we will reach the critical point when there has been no global warming for more than half of the RSS satellite temperature record – which extends back to 1978.
In a few weeks, we will reach the point when there have been no major hurricane strikes on the US for seven years, the longest such period since the civil war.
Alarmist scientists will continue to lie about CO2, because they have no useful job skills and would likely end up in a homeless shelter if the global warming research money quit flowing.
“Alarmist scientists will continue to lie about CO2, because they have no useful job skills and would likely end up in a homeless shelter if the global warming research money quit flowing.”
As long as they can find something else that:
1) Will doom the earth if we don’t do something about it now, and
2) It makes for great “news” coverage,
then you can bet the research $ will continue to flow.
Homeless shelter? Prison would be more appropriate. Hopefully President Romney will put an end to this graft in his first one hundred days.
So tell us: why is the RSS data more significant than the UAH data (which shows a lower troposphere warming of 0.06 +/- 0.03 C/decade over the last 15 years)?
@David: You do realize that 0.06C/decade works out to a rate of warming that is lower than the 0.7C of warming in the 20th century.
I think David’s argument is that the IPCC models are not really really really really wrong but only really really really wrong.
Also, what is magic about 15 years? The 15-yr linear trend of RSS LT is -0.04 +/- 0.03 C/decade, while the 20-yr linear trend is 0.12 +/- 0.02 C/decade (uncertainty is one sigma in both cases).
Are we supposed to pretend that one is meaningful while the other is not?
Welcome to what is known as cherry picking (which you and your alarmist friends have been doing for years). Are you really not able to figure this stuff on your own?
It is not simply the recent flatness of the trend, it is the deceleration of the increase that is most noteworty. The same is observed with the rate of sea level rise that has steadily declined since 1998. If one acknowledges that we now seem to be at the beginning of a La Nina dominated cycle and that most of the 1972 to 1998 temperature increase was El Nino dominated it would seem to be difficult to be bullish about the next 15 years for a significant global temperature increase or sea level rise acceleration. Finally with Pacific ocean , southern ocean and the south Atlantic SST’s headed down the entire hope for increasing global temps now seem to rely on North Atlantic temps that may have peaked.
David,
Also what is magic about 20 years? The 20-yr linear trend of RSS LT is 0.12 +/- 0.02 C/decade, while the 1700-yr linear trend is 0.001 +/- 0.0001 C/decade (uncertainty is one sigma in both cases).
Are we supposed to pretend that one is meaningful while the other is not?
I think that’s how he wants it to work…
LOL,
It is WAAAAAY below the IPCC’s .20C per decade temperature increase projections.
When are you going to wake up?
I think you are being a bit harsh on people in a homeless shelter.
Some of them have been very smart people who have been dealt a bad hand – unlike these grant-sucking parasites in the AGW Industry.
Regardless of you preference, RSS/UAH are both well within geo-historical margins for the past 4000 years. Our 12 degrees F. this morning in the Copper River Basin makes it all irrelevant from my standpoint. The snowline at 1900′ and the end-of-season discontinuous permafrost temperatures to 45 meters are the coolest measurements taken since 1973, which also makes UAH/RSS irrelevant from my standpoint.
The Indian ocean dipole and NAO are dumping heat at a time when we’d hope for them to be stable. The Antarctic stream and ice pack are maxed and the three main bodies of water that connect are cooler than normal, so what comes next over the next three months is not good news for AGW funding…
Important Global Warming Dates Coming Up
Global warming ‘may lead to smaller fish’
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/global-warming-may-lead-to-smaller-fish-8191514.html
The biggest fish in the sea could be almost 25 per cent smaller by 2050 because of global warming, according to a new study.
Warmer oceans will carry less dissolved oxygen, causing fish to grow to smaller sizes and forcing them to move to cooler waters, the research published in the journal Nature Climate Change claims.
Scientists predict that a rise in global temperatures over the coming decades will cause the average body size of sea fish to decline by between 14 and 24 per cent.
Bla bla bla etc
..but…but…but…
“Bigger fish due to climate change: tuna industry
Updated Fri Jul 11, 2008 11:27am AEST
The tuna industry says climate change is bringing benefits.
The chief executive of the Australian Southern Bluefin Tuna Association, Brian Jeffriess, says Port Lincoln crews in South Australia are reporting an excellent quality and size catch.
He says it can be partly attributed to the effects of climate change on the waters of the Great Australian Bight.
“There’s no doubt climate change will bring benefits to the Great Australian Bight ecology in the sense that there’s more upwellings therefore more small pelagics as we call them – sardines, mackerel, red bait, other fish – and that will bring tuna so there may be even winners from climate change,” he said.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-07-11/bigger-fish-due-to-climate-change-tuna-industry/437232
Ivan , all men know that when you swim in cold water IT gets smaller ! So you go for your honeymoon to a caribbean island because of the warm water .U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton went to the cold Arctic and not because polar ice recedes because we know that that is not true.
Steve if you’re very unlucky Obama will have the alarmist working in IRS!