Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- “Gender-responsive climate action”
- Ellen Flees To The UK
- HUD Climate Advisor
- Causes Of Increased Storminess
- Scientist Kamala Harris
- The End Of Polar Bears
- Cats And Hamsters Cause Hurricanes
- Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- New BBC Climate Expert
- 21st Century Toddlers Discuss Climate Change
- “the United States has suffered a “precipitous increase” in hurricane strikes”
- Thing Of The Past Returns
- “Impossible Heatwaves”
- Billion Dollar Electric Chargers
- “Not A Mandate”
- Up Is Down
- The Clean Energy Boom
- Climate Change In Spain
- The Clock Is Ticking
- “hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- “Earth’s hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
Recent Comments
- Jehzsa on “Gender-responsive climate action”
- Peter Carroll on Causes Of Increased Storminess
- arn on HUD Climate Advisor
- spren on HUD Climate Advisor
- conrad ziefle on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Tel on Ellen Flees To The UK
- Petit_Barde on Ellen Flees To The UK
- dm on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Gamecock on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Richard E Fritz on The End Of Polar Bears
Heidi the declini.
She’s just a typical denialist of global norming
Nice pun.
Something that has bothered me for a long time:
Look at the temperature jump above the year 1997 giving a some 0.2 deg.C “anomaly.”
What is “anomalous”? It is 0.2 degree increase over the 288 K “equilibrium radiation temperature” of the Earth and Sun.
For this to happen, there would have to be a sudden 10% decrease in albedo (at least) that came about over the year 1997 and never returned to the previous value.
No such albedo change has ever been reported (nor could it have some rational explanation) – the only way this “anomaly” could appear is a redefinition of baseline global temperatures after the year 1997
i get more sick by the day with this
% change in Albedo Graph
This graph is from the first draft before “adjustments’ (Earthshine Project -Big Bear Solar Observatory)
Gail, I printed your graph–thanks. Do you have a graph after adjustments?
Also, do you have information on the (I like to call it ‘recipe for’) homogenization?
I appreciate your contributions.
The orginal graph came from a WUWT article about a pre-publication paper:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2007/10/17/earths-albedo-tells-a-interesting-story/
General paper with discussion of the measurements:
http://www.bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/espaper/earthshine_proposal.html
At the bottom is The Project Earthshine Bibliography can be seen here. clicking on here will take you to several papers.
Earlier Paper
http://bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/literature/Palle_etal_2004_ASR.pdf
Later Paper DRAFT that the graph comes from:
http://bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/literature/Palle_etal_2008_JGR.pdf
See page 22 for the graph.
Final paper in press:
Inter-annual trends in earth’s reflectance1999-2007, E. Palle, P. Montanes-Rodriguez, P.R. Goode, Journal of Geophysical Research, 2008:
http://bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/literature/Palle_Goode_2008_ASP.pdf
See page 21 for the different graph.
Gail—wow, thanks for being so complete.
I have been writing under (your view) in a local newspaper with a paper distribution of around 50,000 plus a larger audience online.
Unfortunately, it is hard to get very technical with a general audience. I send info directly to the most ardent AGW crowd, state publicly that I have done so, and then encourage the exchange of info.- to which there is very little. Mostly, ‘Well, you know its happening because everybody says so’. The AGW crowd is mostly the college prof, non science type, with large and condescending egos, so I rather enjoy putting them on the spot.
Darryl, No problem. Like you I am just trying to inform. And like you I find it a bit difficult to get the information across to those without much science in their background because it is such a well put together scam and so pervasive.
What is interesting is engineers, statisticians and geologists are the fields most inclined to be ‘Den!ers’ especially once they look at the information.
BTW make sure you really read up on that material before you write anything. That way you will not get caught by a nit-picker who then uses a miner point to trash the rest which is all truth.
WTF? She literally took one day of the month, then commented on the month? What does above average mean? Average for the last century? For recorded weather history?
“What does above average mean?”
After 349 months, it means their average doesn’t include much worth mentioning.
Why ruin a $100 billion dollar industry with some stupid thing like the truth?
good point how many K street lobbyists, NGO’s, and assorted beltway bandits would suddenly be left with no source of illegitimate income.
Interesting again that over the whole period, a +0.3 deg C change, CO2 increased by 65 ppm, from 335 to ~400 today.
The current trend is 20 ppm per decade, fairly linear, but maybe some acceleration with China and India opening coal plants every week.
So by 2100, 85 years from now, that’s +170 ppm. For arguments sake let’s say it’s +195 ppm higher = 400+195 = 595, a bit under 600.
Based on the observed trend so far, 3 x 65 = 195, so if linear that’s 0.3*3 = about +1 deg C by 2100.
But we know that the CO2 greenhouse effect is not linear, it’s diminishing with concentration. So 1 degree C is AT MOST what we would see by the end of the century if there is any link at all, which we have observed in the past two decades, there is not any.
Simple arithmetic debunks the crisis.
Do not forget the CO2 numbers are just as ‘Adjusted’ as the temperature records.
note the cherry picking of values as outlined by Mauna Loa Obs.
An easy read on all the shenanigans with the CO2 numbers: link
Dr. Jaworowski gave a much more rigorous presentation of this deception to the US Congress.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/
You bring up a good point. From 280 ppm to 400 ppm, which is about half of a “doubling,” the warming supposedly increased by 0.7C so 1.4C for a doubling. But these idiots say climate sensitivity is 3 or 4 degrees. Morons.
Now assume 1.4 degree climate sensitivity, which is high….we double it again from 400 ppm to 800 ppm and add another 1.4C. Double it again to 1600 ppm and add 1.4C. Double it again and get 3200 ppm.
Now, CO2 is 3200 ppm which is 11 times pre-industrial level, and all we added was few degrees in many centuries or millennia and of course all the fossil fuels ran out long before then. Plants will be very green.
Younger Dryas increased earth’s temps by 14 C in only 40 years. Corals did fine.
There are no words to describe the idiocy of climate experts.
We need to invent some words to describe said idiocy, Morgan.
I suggest:
Climastrophology – the study of the idiocy of climate experts.
Climastrophists – idiot climate experts
Psychoclimatosis – the mental disease afflicting said idiots whose subsets are:
Pagosophobia – fear of ice
Anthrakaphobia – fear of carbon
Any advances? 😀
Tom Cruz is a leading climate scientologist.
I suggest horse manure
Wyguy, that is not nearly nasty enough. Pig and chicken are much worse but I hate insulting poor animals.
If you did not read it, there is a great little vignette over at WUWT that describes CAGW to a T. (Make sure all food and liquids are safely tucked away before reading.)
link
Heidi Cullen says that “deniers” get their Communist cards taken away or something like that
Heidi retains her crown and title of ‘Weather Bimbo’ (despite Katharine Hayhoe’s attempt to claim it)
Since the graph starts at the minimum of early ’70s, it looks much worse than it really is.
The planet’s average March temperature was 57.9°F — 0.7°C (or 1.2°F) above the average temperature from 1951-1980 — behind only the March of 2002, 2010 and 1990, in that order. Data is still coming in that could change the temperature deviation from this March, but likely only a few hundredths of a degree in either direction, said climate scientist Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, which compiles the temperature data……
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/march-was-fourth-warmest-on-record-globally-17304
AHHHhhh, So that is why my below freezing 6 inches of snow got changed to above freezing and rain…
The satellite data
UAH Global Temperature graph to date for march 2014
Values for last four years.
YR… MON… GLOBAL… NH…… SH……TROPICS
2014.. 3……. +0.170.. +0.337.. +0.002.. -0.002
2013.. 3……. +0.200.. +0.333.. +0.067.. +0.243
2012.. 03….. +0.108.. +0.128.. +0.089.. -0.108
2011.. 3…….. -0.101.. -0.073.. -0.128…. -0.342
RSS Temperature Lower Troposphere Graph
Per John Christy, RSS and UAH anomalies are not comparable because they use different base periods, i.e., “RSS only uses 1979-1998 (20 years) while UAH uses the WMO standard of 1981-2010.”