RealClimate: Global Warming Since 1997 Underestimated by Half
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Maldives Refuse To Drown
- Game Over For The Climate
- Another Ice Age?
- Historic Heatwave
- Historic Heatwave
- Science-Free Journalism
- Why Is Venus So Hot?
- Color Or Monochrome?
- AI Doublespeak
- AI Doublespeak
- Net Zero Intelligence
- “The Green Party dropped nearly 9 per cent”
- Fake Record Heat In India
- RFK Jr’s Plan For $12 Gas
- Hockey Match
- Hockey Match
- Giving Proper Credit
- Conspiracy Theory!
- “No One Is Above The Law”
- CNN Experts Discuss Medicine
- Looking For Their Lost Keys
- Rapid Climate Change
- CBS News 1982 : One Fourth Of Florida To Drown
- Affordable Transportation
- “Why Scientific Fraud Is Suddenly Everywhere”
Recent Comments
- Conrad Ziefle on Maldives Refuse To Drown
- arn on Maldives Refuse To Drown
- Gordon Vigurs on Maldives Refuse To Drown
- arn on Maldives Refuse To Drown
- Bill on Maldives Refuse To Drown
- Conrad Ziefle on Maldives Refuse To Drown
- Conrad Ziefle on Game Over For The Climate
- Conrad Ziefle on Game Over For The Climate
- roaddog on Maldives Refuse To Drown
- arn on Game Over For The Climate
C-Fact Rallies 50.000 Poles to demonstrate against a new Climate Treaty: http://www.cfact.org/2013/11/12/cfact-rallies-50000-poles-against-climate-treaty/
If this study is true, every ipcc wg1 author and commenter is a big ignorant dork.
Forgot to follow
Please see my comments on the benefits of elevated atmospheric CO2 in the Canada joins Australia post.
Obama the totalitarian, “we don’t need no stink’in Congress: http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/11/09/the-hill-obama-grasps-for-climate-legacy-as-second-term-agenda-crumbles-uses-executive-orders-to-bypass-congress/
Totalitarian take over: Climate Treaty without a vote. Russia Protests UN’s shocking Consensus Procedure.
http://www.cfact.org/2013/11/10/a-climate-treaty-without-a-vote-russia-protests-uns-shocking-consensus-procedure/
If there was originally zero warming during the time in question, and now they have found double the warming, isn’t 0 X 2 still zero warming?
A statement has just been released by the researchers…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFh8WS0s8UQ
Seems that they are desperate to either explain the lack of warming or to find some warming. So, how do they fill in the blanks in the data? Do they add data from stations 1000 km from the “missing” data, say in the southerly direction? I read some time ago that the experts were filling in missing data this way for South America, with lower, warmer elevation data being used to represent the higher elevation stations. Ain’t since wunnerful when if you don’t like the results, MSU (make stuff up).
The Hockey Stick Team has now attached itself to a super outlier data set that would make Dr. Frankenstein proud a desperate move that should make their cult followers queasy as skeptics can now publicly apply the laugh test. And this is all on top of the blatant re-adjustment to oh so convenient recent warming from HADCRUT3 to their HADCRUT4:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/mean:12
A Lew poll????
In terms of kinetic energy. polar temperatures are almost irrelevant.
But if they want to play silly games, Antarctic temps have continued to decline in the last 10 years.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/11/08/antarctic-temperature-trends/
And Arctic satellite temps have been flat over the last decade.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/09/19/the-rapidly-warming-arctic/
You have to do it right:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/plot/best/from:1938/to:1979
I sent this :-
From a reportedly moderated comment. Nothing to hide if you are honest.
“Satellites show declining temperatures over the last 15 years. Either you trust satellite data or you don’t – but mixing and matching is junk science.
Almost as bad as grafting surface temperature data on to a proxy data to make a hockey stick.”
I don’t understand – if 15% of the data is missing, and that can provide a 50% sway in the amount of global warming, what happens if you’re missing 70% of the data and 100% of the data…
you know, like 100% lack of data for the ocean air temps before satellites and 100% lack of air temps before 1850?
They assign very high anomalies to regions with no data, and thus get them weighted very heavily.
Muhammed Tapdancing Allah – we actual scientists would refer to that as “alchemy”.
Hey, way back(can’t recall the year steve showed),with 1 thermometer in the Southern Hemisphere, they were able to determine the temp of the earth very accurately…!
You’re first sentence sums it up…
btw: here’s what i posted on the site – i give it less percentage chance of being posted than the 16% of the temps we can’t monitor that are hiding 50% of the global warming
“Surprising isn’t hardly how i’d label it.
If 16% of the globe we cant monitor can double the amount of global warming – can you imagine how much warming could be discovered if we had actual data for sea surface air temperatures before satellites?
Or measured air temps before 1850?
If my calculations are correct, you could have like four times as much global warming.”
How would they know the Arctic is 50% responsible for the Warming…. Without any real data to back up the claim?? If anything, satellite data confirms the 17 yr pause…
The one fact we DO know … Is that since 1998 average temperatures have actually GONE DOWN… even according to the proxy data manipulating IPCC or Michael Mann out there measuring Palm Fromm’s … Trying to devise any proxy to demonstrate warming without ever leaving his office at the University…
Also… As Steven has demonstrated multiple times… NOAA, GISS, anD others get real data… Then “normalize” or change the actual data for some reason… But always in an upward direction… How would you explain the consistent UPWARD normalization of actual measurements taken?
Will my second post make it, here? Randomly, no.
Evidently, yes.
They are beyond parody now.
Ahem….. given that the composition of the air is different in the polar regions, then, “krigging” in the tropics and extrapolating that to the poles is simply goofy. Isn’t there like a lack of ozone and stuff which would alter the difference between surface to air temps in the tropics vs surface to air temps at the poles?
your comment will wind up in the bore hole
In the bore hole…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InBXu-iY7cw
May I apologise in advance for all the pictures this conjures?
I commented that grafting satellite altimeter data onto tide gauge data was almost as bad as the hockey stick. You can see it for yourself in the bore hole.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/the-bore-hole/comment-page-28/#comments
What’s post 1386 about?
Wasn’t it Gavin who refused to share the stage with Roy Spencer? I’ve never witnessed such arrogance but most likely he was afraid of getting into a “debate” situation and be embarrassed.