Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Mission Accomplished
- Both High And Low Sea Ice Extent Caused By Global Warming
- Record Sea Ice Caused By Global Warming
- “Rapid Antarctic sea ice loss is causing severe storms”
- “pushing nature past its limits”
- Compassion For Terrorists
- Fifteen Days To Slow The Spread
- Maldives Underwater By 2050
- Woke Grok
- Grok Explains Gender
- Humans Like Warmer Climates
- Homophobic Greenhouse Gases
- Grok Explains The Effects Of CO2
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2027
- Red Hot Australia
- EPA : 17.5 Degrees Warming By 2050
- “Winter temperatures colder than last ice age
- Big Oil Saved The Whales
- Guardian 100% Inheritance Tax
- Kerry, Blinken, Hillary And Jefferson
- “Climate Change Indicators: Heat Waves”
- Combating Bad Weather With Green Energy
- Flooding Mar-a-Lago
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2020
- Colorless, Odorless CO2
Recent Comments
- Disillusioned on “pushing nature past its limits”
- Francis Barnett on “pushing nature past its limits”
- Disillusioned on Mission Accomplished
- conrad ziefle on Mission Accomplished
- conrad ziefle on Mission Accomplished
- Billyjack on Mission Accomplished
- conrad ziefle on Both High And Low Sea Ice Extent Caused By Global Warming
- conrad ziefle on “pushing nature past its limits”
- conrad ziefle on Mission Accomplished
- John Francis on Mission Accomplished
I discussed this issue with Tamino
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/global-temperature-the-post-1998-surprise/
and he gave me a carefully thought out, reasonable answer
“Well thought out reply”. 😀
I noticed someone on the thread squeaking about this Arctic Ice extent project:
“The $150,000 project stemmed from a partnership between the center, the Alaska Ocean Observing System and Scenarios Network for Alaska and Arctic Planning at UAF, said Walsh.”
http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20140125/new-sea-ice-map-offers-long-term-look-climate-change
They are now resorting to revising arctic ice history so that it matches their alarmist rhetoric, following the bollocking received from Steven Goddard, Anthony Watts and the rest. Considering they have been revising temperature data, should we be surprised.
Now i thought taking money to create lies was fraud in any country. Giving money to people to commit fraud is aiding and abetting. Apparently not in USA.
They work for the government and are only doing what they’re told.
Even better would be the 1930’s for an even longer term trend? Anybody want to start a petition to audit the temperature records? Of course one might be risking an audit by the IRS if one did. I am sure the arrest of film maker Dinesh DeSouza is entirely coincidental and has nothing to do with his anti Obama documentary. And then I am sure the present justice dept would prosecute any fudging of data.
Hey Anthony, I have this slightly used bridge I want to sell. I am sure you are just the buyer I am looking for. /sarc
Yet another pointless statistics exercise by Tamino …will he ever bore himself silly?
The South will rise again…
http://www.zazzle.com/the_south_will_rise_again_bumper_sticker-128060839661499029
…as long as there’s not 2.6 inches of snow on the ground!
Seriously, somebody make a better version.
If you run Tamino’s trend backward, (@ 1.5 deg C per century),
the Maunder Minimum is explained, there was no medieval warming period, and roman era would have been 30 degrees colder that now. We also get to absolute zero at the last ice age. I think he may be onto something, I mean on something.
I don’t think running the trend forward is helpful because the Earth bursts into a fusion star in a few millennia. No need to terrify little kiddies and alarmist morons.
Who’s Tamino?
A disciple of Mann, Hansen et al.
His real name is Grant Foster.
Of Tempo Analytics.
It’s not the Climate warmists fault. Their religion believes that the planet came into existence in the 1970’s. They refuse to listen to scientists who believe that the planet it older than a few decades because that would go against the teachings of their Prophet Al Gore.
I know that there was a planet before 1970, because that was the last time I had to listen to Simon and Garfunkel.
Our English teacher highly recommended Simon and Garfunkel to us.
No Melody. You can’t blame the sheep.
You can’t blame the shepherds either, they are just following orders. You can’t blame them, anymore than you can blame Hermann Göring
Somebody should tell Tamino, since he’s such a statistics genius, to plot GISS global temperature curve and the CO2 levels on the same graph from 1850 to 2014, and see if they correlate better than milk prices and saturn’s rings
Actually the CO2 levels plotted against inflation would be even better (Grin)
I know this one passes the T test:
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c019aff4fe90c970c-500wi
almost a perfect correlation
To avoid cherry-picking annual global temperature data, use annual global data, not, “US October-January Temperatures.” 3% of the planet’s surface for 25% of each year! Blatant, transparent cherry-picking.
Here’s the global data from 1979 – the satellite period, which Tamino often uses: Plot
1979 is not a low year, it’s right near the trend line. I used RSS data since for some reason Steve thinks it is “more accurate” than the other data sets.
So let’s take the hated GISS and check a little further back. Tamino also uses 1985 as a start date. Let’s run a trend from there: Plot
1975 is right near the trend line, but 1976 is a cool year. Does his ‘cherry-pick’ make a big difference? Let’s plot from the next warm year, 1977: Plot
The difference in trend is 0.01C/decade. Yep, you heard right. 0.1C per century difference.
But wait, there’s a really warm couple of years 1980/81. let’s plot a trend from 1980 and see if it makes a big difference: Plot
Virtually identical trend to the one from 1977. IOW, it doesn’t matter which start point is used with 25+ years of data. The linear trend is pretty stable.
Does Tamino justify his start points? Yes.
1979 because it is the beginning of satellite data.
1975 because it marks a statistical change in global data (modern warming period), and the trend since then is strongly linear.
Does Steve justify his choice of using US October-January data to comment on global temperature trends?
No.
But it would be entertaining to see him try. Over to you, Steve.
You folks are so completely full of crap, it is mind boggling.
Well argued.
Wouldn’t it be funny if we increased CO2 to 800ppm and climate sensitivity dropped to zero? How would you global warmanazis make a living then?
Hey Barry, I wonder if you can have Tamino cherry-pick the following graph to increase correlation.
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01a51156c785970c-pi
http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com.au/2009/03/does-co2-correlate-with-temperature.html
How were those measurements made barry? It says nothing about where they come from. Did you just make them up?
I have an idea….let’s go back to reality and use Earth, and take some real life measurements and see if there is a correlation:
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c019b0337f5b3970c-pi
Is there a correlation? To quote John Belushi: “Nooooooooooooooooooo”
No sources in your graph – did you just make them up?
No explanation either – it’s a graphic with no information whatsoever. At least Grumbine explains his calculations.
But I did notice that – apparently – your source is trying to (anti)correlate CO2 to temperature in 3 year increments. That’s laughable. As if weather should stop happening when CO2 accumulates.
Global climate is measured on multidecadal time scales. Not in NY, not just in the US, not a quarter of the year, not 3-year increments. There are so many ways to fudge the analysis. Unless you’re using multidecadal full-year global data, you’re not analysing global trends of climate.
I think we need to take you to a brainsmith. Everything you just said is wrong.
Or, maybe you are just full of crap. New York? 3 year increments? No source in my graph? Yeah that’s it, you’re just making up BS again, because all you have is BS.
Sorry about that — I’m surprised that the sources are missing. For temperatures, it is NCDC’s global temperatures. For CO2 it is the Keeling Mauna Loa observations 1957-present, the Siple ice core before that. Time for an update to the article and I’ll be sure to include the sources this time!
Barry,
Do you realize that for most of your plots the trend is 0.1 to 0.15 C/decade? That is 1/2 to 1/3 the predictions. Which is what most skeptics have been saying all along: you are exaggerating and saying something is a looming catastrophe and we need immediate action. If you take global data sets, even after they have been adjusted out the wazoo you clearly see that the total change and rate of change for the global warming from 1905 to ~1940 is about the same as the more recent one, which has definitely slowed. Else why would the IPCC and dozens of Nature, Science, GRL papers be asking where the missing heat is?
Bill, they average on 0.14C/decade, and they represent past observations. Projections for the future trends are higher. AR4 predicted “about 0.2C/decade over the next 20 years” in 2007, which is 0.15 – 0.25C/decade. We’ll have to wait until 2027 to see how far off they were. 0.14 is well in the ballpark for the last 34 years.
“Missing heat” – accounting for heat flow within the system is what that’s about. Ocean uptake is looking like a promising candidate, but uncertainty remains. Sea level is rising, global sea ice declining, glaciers melting, and upwelling infrared is being occluded by GHGs as witnessed by satellites. The globe shows all the signs of warming, but we don’t have the monitoring systems to say exactly where where the added heat is going. That’s Trenberth’s lament. He’s written papers on it.
We’re way off topic.
“Sea level is rising, global sea ice declining, glaciers melting, and upwelling infrared is being occluded by GHGs as witnessed by satellites.”
1. Sea level has been rising for 150 years at the same rate, no acceleration is spite of all the lies and data fudging you people make up saying otherwise.
http://www.hyzercreek.com/NYsealevel.jpg
2. Global sea ice is increasing. Decreasing in the N and increasing in the S, but the S has a lot more sea ice so global is increasing.
3. Glaciers have been melting for 150 years, nothing to do with CO2
4. Upwelling infrared (earth’s surface radiates 6 to 17 microns) is absorbed by H2O from 6 to 9 microns, goes out the window from 9 to 13 microns, and from 13 to 17 the atmosphere is opaque already due to CO2, so no mount of increased CO2 can make any difference because it’s already absorbing 100%
5. Satellites see an increase in upwelling IR?? That’s impossible. Satellites only see the TOA. How can satellites see the upwelling IR unless the atmosphere gets out of the way?
Basically, everything you say is wrong. Since everything you say is wrong, you must be lying. Even stupid people get things right once in a while. You got everything wrong so you aren’t even stupid. You’re just full of crap.
1. Sea level has been rising for 150 years at the same rate, no acceleration is spite of all the lies and data fudging you people make up saying otherwise.
http://www.hyzercreek.com/NYsealevel.jpg
Why do you keep referring to me in the plural?
You are showing sea level rise at New York?? What gives with using single locations to talk about global phenomena?
Here’s the global record:
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/images/CSIRO_GMSL_figure.jpg
Although the rate for the last 22 years (the duration of satellite measurement of sea level) is nearly twice as much as for the 20th century, there is not enough information to say whether sea level rise has accelerated. That should become clearer with a decade’s more data.
2. Global sea ice is increasing. Decreasing in the N and increasing in the S, but the S has a lot more sea ice so global is increasing.
Wrong. The trend of NH melt area exceeds SH growth over the satellite period.
http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/images/arc_antarc_1979_2012.png
The global trend is a decline of 400,000 sq km/decade.
http://protonsforbreakfast.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/global-sea-ice-versus-year.jpg
Month to month, sea ice area goes above or below the baseline, but the trend is clear, and statistically significant.
3. Glaciers have been melting for 150 years, nothing to do with CO2
CO2 has been accumulating since 1750. But a discussion about attribution would be too far off-topic. Maybe Steve will take this point up in a future post. My point was that there is clear evidence of global warming since 1979 (which Steve calls BS).
4. Upwelling infrared (earth’s surface radiates 6 to 17 microns) is absorbed by H2O from 6 to 9 microns, goes out the window from 9 to 13 microns, and from 13 to 17 the atmosphere is opaque already due to CO2, so no mount of increased CO2 can make any difference because it’s already absorbing 100%
The spectral function is like a histogram. The mid-point for CO2 main band (15 microns) is opaque near the surface, but on the edges it is not. Absorption is still increasing on the sides. Also CO2 absorbs at 10 and 4 microns, where there is no WV absorption. Furthermore, saturation occurs near the surface, but infrared keeps being emitted and absorbed and emitted by GHG molecules until it leaves the top of the atmosphere. As the atmosphere thins vertically, more CO2 up there absorbs more infrared spatially.
5. Satellites see an increase in upwelling IR?? That’s impossible. Satellites only see the TOA. How can satellites see the upwelling IR unless the atmosphere gets out of the way?
Satellites see a decrease (occlude = to block or close off). It’s how they know there is saturation near the surface in the 15 micron range. The radiance has decreased in the spectral bands associated with GHGs (CO2 and water vapour). If you think satellites cannot measure radiance changes in the atmosphere, you should completely discount the satellite temperature record, which relies on such measurements to get the raw data (but hey, maybe it’s all a big lie).
Do you – or does anyone – have a substance filled reply to my original comment, which was on topic?
I use New York but every other city is the same:
http://www.hyzercreek.com/SFsealevel.jpg
Or just go to http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=9414290 and look for yourself. The trend is linear everywhere you look, going back to the 1800s, and it’s NOT accelerating, as it is in your BS link where they add satellite data to tide gauge data, which is utter fraud.
“CO2 has been accumulating since 1750”
That’s one line of BS you warmers keep shoveling. CO2 has only been significantly accumulating since around 1940. Nice try but not really a nice try. I don’t want to know when when we started adding CO2, I want to know when the level actually started changing. You are lying and you know it.
http://www.hyzercreek.com/fossilfuels1950.jpg
So, when you warmbeciles are told that glaciers have been melting and sea levels have been seriously rising since 1850 or before, your only answer is that CO2 has been accumulating since 1750, when you know that’s wrong? Do you know what that means? It means you are spewing BS. You are lying.
You can’t argue with a liar.
Barry,
The more accurate you are and the more you use science-based citations, the less likely “Real Science” posters will believe you.
This is a strange phenomenon based in sub-atomic physics. Recently the underground atom smasher in Switzerland and France, CERN, finally detected what scientists have predicted for decades — “The anti-reality particle”. Have you heard of protons and electrons? Well these are called morons.
Oh look! The natural variability denier is back! Gee, I wonder if he has finally found that paper I have been asking him about for years now? 😆
Yeah Drewski. Like when he says CO2 has been accumulating since 1750. That’s science-based. And splicing satellite altimeter data onto tide gauge data and saying it shows acceleration of sea level rise. Science fraud-based
Hey Barry, you say satellites are noticing a decrease in upwelling IR at the TOA? That’s a lie. I got data for you that tells you why you are full of shizzle.
The OLR data in W/m^2:
1980….230.0456
2011….232.8239
This data comes from the KNMI Climate Explorer, which credits NOAA as the source. Increase in OLR with a constant solar influx means the atmosphere became less opaque between 1980 and 2011. I’m just wondering, how an increase in CO2 can cause a decrease in opacity. Can you ask Al Gore to explain this inconvenient truth??
I’m thinking, maybe the AGW theory is stupid.
It is, after all, a mental disorder.
Hey, why not use 2004 as the starting point?
Why not 2008? Or last November?
He’s being sarcastic. Why not use 1934?
This shows how much of a problem the 1970s are:
movement of Köppenn Climate boundaries by decade (zoom to 200% to see it better)
The Köppen climate classification is a vegetation-based empirical climate classification system developed by German botanist-climatologist Wladimir Köppen. His aim was to devise formulas that would define climatic boundaries in such a way as to correspond to those of the vegetation zones (biomes) that were being mapped for the first time during his lifetime. [britannica.com]
Does defining climate zones in the US have any impact on global climate records from surface and satellite?
Amending – Does defining climate zones in the US have any impact on global temperature records from surface and satellite?
Temperature records are a rotten measure of eath atmospheric energy. They leave out the enthalpy of vaporization of water ( heat of evaporation) Add in all the dicking around with the data bases, the ‘Dog Ate My Homework’ or the ‘Goat Ate My Homework’ excuses, I would rather use other measures of what the climate is doing.
Unfortunately my linked comments go in to moderation so I will put them into another comment box.
The record Antarctic Ice has already been done to death. Here is the Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover.
October http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/snowcover-nhland/201310.gif
November http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/snowcover-nhland/201311.gif
December http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/snowcover-nhland/201212.gif
January: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/snowcover-nhland/201301.gif
February http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/snowcover-nhland/201302.gif
and
March http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/snowcover-nhland/201303.gif
That is six winter months showing snow fall returning to “normal” that is to the 1970s outlier decade shown in the Koppen chart.
Peer-reviewed papers:
A more recent paper looking at glaciers in Norway.
The authors of BOTH these papers state that most glaciers likely didn’t exist 6,000 years ago, but the highest period of the glacial activity has been in the past 600 years. This is hardly surprising with ~9% less solar energy.
You are talking about WEATHER we talk about CLIMATE.
Mike Sanicola says: @ February 3, 2014 at 11:37 pm
There is the Earthshine Project Data from being done at the Big Bear Solar Observatory. It gives the earth’s albedo
graph and a more up to date graph