Note that JMA has erased the global cooling they reported in 1974, which was going to destroy a “generation of peace”
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Climate Desperation
- Artificial Stupidity
- Climate Obsession
- The Climate Empire Strikes Back
- Climate Scam Parrots
- âIâve dealt with him before â
- “Iâve dealt with him before.”
- “BE HONEST”
- Turn Out The Lights – The Party’s Over
- Net Zero In The UK
- Turn Out The Lights, The Party Is Over
- Michael Mann Again
- Over The Target
- Michael Mann’s Latest Research
- “an amazing documentary dismantling the climate change theory”
- The Worldâs Greatest Climate Scientist Speaks Out
- Startling New Revelation
- Just An Illusion
- Climate Conditioning
- Fact Checking Reuters
- No Correlation
- I Offended Their Religion
- The High Priest Has Forbidden Questioning His Religion
- Hiding And Rewriting History
- Fact-Free Economist
Recent Comments
- Conrad Ziefle on Artificial Stupidity
- Conrad Ziefle on Climate Desperation
- Kenan on Climate Desperation
- Yammobethere on Artificial Stupidity
- arn on Climate Desperation
- feathers on The Climate Empire Strikes Back
- roaddog on Artificial Stupidity
- Bill Odom on Climate Obsession
- Francis Barnett on Artificial Stupidity
- arn on Artificial Stupidity
Temperature data are “inherently chaotic” (IPCC) and that makes OLS trends unstable, unreliable, and easily manipulated with slight changes to influential observations.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2689425
McGibbon should have a talk to Gavin , tell him to stop the “adjustments”, because the only warming there has been for 18+ year, a Schmidt et al FABRICATION..
How about just #DataFraud … ?? After all … Twitter is just 140 characters..
Your graph doesn’t show surface temperature, Steven. It shows the temperature in the lower troposphere. You can’t compare surface temperature with lower troposphere temperature. Also, McKibben’s graph plots the October global average temperatures. The RSS graph shows yearly temperatures. Thirdly, The X-axis on McKibben’s graph runs from 1890 to the present. The X-axis on the RSS graph runs from 1996 to the present. And finally, the two graphs have different y-axes as well. You made four (4) errors in your comparison, which show that your blog post is dead wrong.
The surface is in the lower troposphere, Marty boy. The thermometers used in weather stations don’t measure the surface either, they are usually around chest-high, about 5 feet above the surface, which is in the lower troposphere.
Gotta ask you, why did the Octobers get so much warmer from 1910 to 1940? Was is the model T Fords that were doing nothing to the CO2 levels? http://www.hyzercreek.com/fossilfuels1950.jpg
Morgan, you should know that in the troposphere, temperature decreases as altitude increases. You can read about that here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troposphere#Temperature
And here is the explanation of the problem of comparing surface temperature with tropospheric temperature: https://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm
In fact, the different records do agree. And here are three versions of the explanation for the rapid warming from 1910 to 1940: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-early-20th-century-advanced.htm
You are allowed to look these things up on your own. The explanations are usually easy to find. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify these points for you and everyone else here.
And no scientist EVER uses Wiki for citations.
You are an ignorant , brain-dead Gore-bot.
Your every post PROVES that you have basically ZERO understanding of science or anything to do with science.
I’n sure everyone reading can see just how much DAMAGE you are doing because of your idiocy.
I’m more and more convinced you are a ‘plant’ by someone to cast alarmists as amongst the stupidest people in the world.
Its working well. đ
Marty my boy, skepticalscience blog and Wikipedia are not proof of anything. Can you reference real science papers by real scientists to support any of the garbage you post…thought not.
I do have to admit though, you remind me David Appell, another dimwit. He always makes me chuckle and so do you. I’ve suggested to David that he should become a standup comedian because he makes me laugh. I think you’ve missed your calling too, and should become a standup comedian, because you make me laugh, also!
Peter, the papers are linked in the Skeptical Science articles, so unfortunately, you will have to load those pages and read them to get the information you demand. Also, your opinion of Skeptical Science is an invalid argument. Actually, it isn’t an argument at all.
SkS is a JUNK PROPAGANDA site… End of story.
But if its all you have , Martin.. hey.. keep making a FOOL of yourself.
Skeptical Science?
Ha ha ha ha!
They like to play “Himmler dress-up” games. They’re really weird.
Again, there’s the brain-dead twerp thinking anything from SkS is worth a piece of crap..
IT ISN’T !!!
You have fallen for every piece of bogus propaganda they have presented..
So sad to seem a mind so numb !!
Please get yourself checked for early stages of dementia.
“Morgan, you should know that in the troposphere, temperature decreases as altitude increases.”
Got you. Your ignorance traps you again.
Now you have to prove that the lapse rate has changed in the last 15 years.
Have fun with that, child-mind.
Oh wait…. you are so ignorant you have absolutely no idea what I mean , do you. ! đ
Such fun, playing with brain-dead trolls. đ
Off you trot, little child.. Off to SkS to get someone to explain it to you. đ
The child-mind returns. !!
NOTHING before 1979 is worth a crap, the data is all massively corrupted by mal-adjustments outside earlier error bands.
Didn’t you do ANY maths in your BS degree, you seem monumentally ignorant?
There is NOTHING wrong with any of SG’s graphs.
You just don’t like them. Well bad luck, little brain-dead Gore bot…,
… We all know you can’t cope with REAL DATA.
Martin Smith says,,,
“1. You canât compare surface temperature with lower troposphere temperature. 2. Also, McKibbenâs graph plots the October global average temperatures. The RSS graph shows yearly temperatures. 3. Thirdly, The X-axis on McKibbenâs graph runs from 1890 to the present. 4. The X-axis on the RSS graph runs from 1996 to the present. 5.And finally, the two graphs have different y-axes as well. 6.You made four (4) errors in your comparison, which show that your blog post is dead wrong.
==================================================================
Poor Martin, wrong on every point. 1. Of course one can compare the lapse rate, and the difference between the surface and the rest of the troposphere. It has not changed yet the divergence between the satellites, admitted by NOAA to be the most accurate record, and the surface stations has increased well beyond any error bars for the satellite record, and, as the lapse rate has not changed, are a physical impossibility. The surface record is FUBAR. 2. The RSS computes monthly changes, see the squiggles. 3.and 4. Well Martin, A who said the graphics were of equal duration, and since the both cover 1996 to present, what is the relevance of you stating something irrelevant? 5. Again, this is cogent how? Who said the y-axes was identical? The surface record shows 2015 warmer then 1998 by about .2 degrees where as the far more accurate satellite graphic shows 1998 warmer then 2015 by a peak of almost .4 degrees. The difference is a physical unreality well beyond the error bars of the satellite record and the surface record has been adjusted beyond their own published error bars, with an ever greater percentage of the planet in-filled through homogenization, i.e. not even actual T readings as well as a false adjustment for UHI. Poor Martin, wrong on every point of his assertion, and irrelevant to boot.
There are three temperature data sets in the world that attempt to get even, consistent, data.
They are UAH, RSS and USCRN
The trend in these three data sets match very closely, all showing a slight cooling trend since 2005, thus verifying the satellite data.
The products from NOAA, and anything else that uses their highly corrupted and manipulated GHCN data, deviate massively from this trend.
They are a PROPAGANDA LIE aimed at creating a false trend for the general brain-washed, gullible public like Martin to lap up.
Missed a bit
The trend in USA data in these three data sets match very closely, all showing a slight cooling trend since 2005, thus verifying the data extraction of the satellite data.
Here is why Martin Smith is spouting nothing but propaganda to confuse people:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The Troposphere straight from SS
http://www.skepticalscience.com//pics/2_atmosphere.jpg
Notice how nice and straight the line is in the troposphere showing temperature change is proportional to the elevation.
It can be mathematically formulated too:
The above is why spotty measurements of the temperature of less than 30% of the land mass are a really really rotten measure. [See retired scientist Ben Johnson’s new research] Satellites at least have much better coverage and are not as influenced by UHI or local RH.
Temperature is an extrinsic property and very much dependent on the moisture content of the air at the time of measurement.
https://chiefio.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/ghcn_giss_250kmnov_anom11_2009_2009_1881_1990.gif
Map created from the data at the NASA / GISS web site by E.M. Smith uses a 250 km âsmoothingâ.
Here is a look at the actual stations used (vs the stations tossed) for Canada. Canada is 3.5 million square miles â or 6.7% of the land area of the earth, and covering latitudes from 45N to 85N. Notice the stations tossed are those in the far north. “..the most obvious âholeâ is the lack of stations above latitude 60N. Yukon, Nunavut and Northwest Territories make up 39% of Canada, but between them have only four stations: Dawson and Whitehorse (Y), Eureka and Coral Harbour (NT)…” — Verity Jones
Black triangle are stations in use:
https://diggingintheclay.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/canada-bypopulation.png
https://diggingintheclay.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/canadastations1975.png
“You canât compare surface temperature with lower troposphere temperature”
Please cite proof of this claim. Also explain why the trend of lower troposphere temps is irrelevant.
You really have zero clue.
“You made four (4) errors in your comparison, which show that your blog post is dead wrong.”
Liar.
I urge all sceptics to visit Bill McKibben’s official web site. http://www.billmckibben.com/
It is one of the more bizarre climate-porn, fear infused sites you can find.
Please, not on an empty stomach… or a full one for that matter.
Bill McGibbon calls a trend of 0.64 degC/century “off the charts”?
My god, he really is getting his knickers in a twist about nothing.
I’ve got a bog-standard thermometer here in my classroom. I show my students how big a rise of 0.64C is on the scale and they laugh. It’s barely discernible!
Young people like my students have very quickly begun to see through the CAGW scam.