Home/BlogThe Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for February, 2018 was +0.20 deg. C, down a little from the January value of +0.26 deg. C:
Global area-averaged lower tropospheric temperature anomalies (departures from 30-year calendar monthly means, 1981-2010). The 13-month centered average is meant to give an indication of the lower frequency variations in the data; the choice of 13 months is somewhat arbitrary… an odd number of months allows centered plotting on months with no time lag between the two plotted time series. The inclusion of two of the same calendar months on the ends of the 13 month averaging period causes no issues with interpretation because the seasonal temperature cycle has been removed, and so has the distinction between calendar months.
The global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 14 months are:
YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPICS
2017 01 +0.33 +0.31 +0.34 +0.10
2017 02 +0.38 +0.57 +0.19 +0.08
2017 03 +0.23 +0.36 +0.09 +0.06
2017 04 +0.27 +0.28 +0.26 +0.21
2017 05 +0.44 +0.39 +0.49 +0.41
2017 06 +0.21 +0.33 +0.10 +0.39
2017 07 +0.29 +0.30 +0.27 +0.51
2017 08 +0.41 +0.40 +0.42 +0.46
2017 09 +0.54 +0.51 +0.57 +0.54
2017 10 +0.63 +0.66 +0.59 +0.47
2017 11 +0.36 +0.33 +0.38 +0.26
2017 12 +0.41 +0.50 +0.33 +0.26
2018 01 +0.26 +0.46 +0.06 -0.12
2018 02 +0.20 +0.24 +0.15 +0.03
The linear temperature trend of the global average lower tropospheric temperature anomalies from January 1979 through February 2018 remains at +0.13 C/decade.
The UAH LT global anomaly image for February, 2018 should be available in the next few days here.
The new Version 6 files should also be updated in the coming days, and are located here:
Lower Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Mid-Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt
Tropopause: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/ttp/uahncdc_tp_6.0.txt
Lower Stratosphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0.txt
Hopefully the temperature wont keep falling. Personally I like warm weather, but its also better for the globe. Fingers crossed, that we wont get a little ice age due to solar minimum in the coming decades 🤞
A hypothetical question for those who want no action on GHG emissions.
What would be the worst implications if:
– Global warming is real.
– Our GHG emissions caused it.
– The worst scenarios become likely.
– Action is required.
About 200 countries decided to handle this at the Paris accord. Certainly, the action part is taken care of.
After many continuous years of science, then the same time technological advancement, expect the US to aid and implement a solution should it be necessary.
“The worst scenarios become likely.”
But the worst scenario is the LEAST likely. LOL.
Only the US reduce CO2 significantly. They need no Pariser.
“Pariser” is a German nickname for a preservative.
No, the Paris agreement is only a first step. It by no means covers all of whats necessary.
Svante, why start pushing your pseudoscience? Isn’t that “trolling”? The subject is February UAH results, not your bogus GHE.
Doesn’t it concern you that the UAH anomalies are DROPPING?
Forget the fact that you do not understand the science, the atmosphere is still cooling from the massive El Niño.
The atmosphere does not retain heat from an El Nino 21 months after the event.
Yes des, “not retaining heat” is the same as “cooling”.
Very good.
Let me make this simple for you … the atmosphere does not retain heat from an El Nino 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, …. months after the event.
Des,
You say :”Let me make this simple for you the atmosphere does not retain heat from an El Nino 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, . months after the event.”
I say: can u share the paper or source? I see exactly that sort of lag in the L trop data compared to nino 3.4, but insufficient el nino enents (let alone major events) to characterize them in a statistically meaningful way. I am curious what others have done.
Des, I’m impressed with your ability to learn.
Indeed the atmosphere “does not retain heat”. Believing otherwise is pseudoscience.
The atmosphere cools the planet. It regulates the amount of cooling, just as a thermostat controls the temperature in a house. Of course, heat transfer is not instantaneous, so the actual process of how the atmosphere handles the excess heat energy gets complicated. Some people call the process “weather”.
g*e*r*a*n says:
“Doesnt it concern you that the UAH anomalies are DROPPING?”
Off topic here but what if ENSO, PDO, AMO are just oscillations, without internal combustion?
They can drive temperatures down for thirty years, but CO2 lasts for millennia and we keep adding.
But CO2 can NOT raise temperatures.
G*
Dr. Spencer has explained how CO2 is able to increase surface temperature. So has Eli, Tim Folkerts, Norman, Barry and many others. You disagree because of your bungled understanding of the 2LOT.
For people like you, I have come up with an easy to understand, novice interpretation. No need to look up terms like adiabatic, entropy, or heat engine.
Snape’s law: (just kidding)
If an object is not being heated by a third party, and is not producing its own heat, and is not being “worked upon”, then its temperature can never be increased by something colder.
Otherwise, all bets are off”
snake, with absolutely no knowledge of physics, you have stumbled on the correct interpretation. Your eponymous “law” correctly verifies “CO2 cannot raise temperatures”.
Well done.
(2018 is a great year in climate comedy.)
G*
The surface is being heated be the sun, a third party. Therefore, “all bets are off”, meaning it’s possible for something colder, like a co2 molecule in the atmosphere, to make the surface hotter.
snake continues with his pseudoscience.
“Cold” warms “hot”.
Hilarious.
Snape,
You are just being stupid, but maybe you don’t realise it, because you are stupid.
Physics is not about your stupid proclamation that all bets are off.
It doesn’t matter how much energy you supply from ice, you still can’t make water any hotter.
Just stupid. Even if you try a giant magnifying glass, you still can’t trap, accumulate, or concentrate the heat being continuously emitted from a giant object at a relatively toasty 270K.
Cheers.
Mike
It wasn’t meant to be a proclamation, more just a dumbed down interpretation. Obviously not dumbed down enough for you and g*.
S,
Only a stupid person would propose a dumbed down interpretation of something they stupidly made up.
If you don’t understand physics well enough, your dumbed down interpretation is just going to make you look even more stupid!
Carry on with your stupid assertion that all bets are off! Who would care, apart from a person even more stupid than you?
Learn some physics, then you won’t look quite as stupid as you do.
Cheers.
Mike
Why so grouchy?
BTW, I didn’t make up the 2LOT, just tried to dumb it down to a point where g* could understand it. Wishful thinking, I know.
g*e*r*a*n says
“But CO2 can NOT raise temperatures”.
Another tough choice. Do I trust you or Roy Spencer?
Snape,
Why are you stupid enough to imagine I am grouchy?
Not only did you not make up the 2LOT, you must be too stupid to understand it, judging by your stupid comments. You need to understand what you are talking about. Otherwise, you will appear as stupid you appear to be here.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn, wo criticizes anyone for ad homs, uses many ad homs. Hmmm…
Whoops. Flynn, not Flynno.
Cheers.
Svante,
Why not learn some physics?
Too stupid?
Cheers.
Svante asks: “Do I trust you or Roy Spencer?”
Svante, if you could think for yourself, you wouldn’t have to rely on others.
Mike Flynn says:
“Why not learn some physics? Too stupid?”
Roy Spencer did learn some physics and he proved both of you wrong.
Svante wants to believe: “Roy Spencer did learn some physics and he proved both of you wrong.”
See Svante, you can’t think logically. Your imagination tricks you, and you don’t even know it. Where is this “proof” you have imagined?
One example: https://tinyurl.com/jbdfotu
That’s it? You believe that is “proof”?
This is a great year in climate comedy.
Svante,
Are you really stupid enough to think that because the atmosphere is above 0 K, you have discovered something new?
I guess you are.
Cheers.
No Mike, you misunderstand, it wasn’t me.
Joseph Fourier realized that there was a GHE in the 1820s.
S,
You haven’t read Fourier recently have you? Fourier revised his speculation. After you’ve reread Fourier (not that you have actually read his work yourself, obviously), tell me again about Fouriers speculation.
Stupid – speculation is fantasy, until verified by reproducible experiments.
Cheers.
You mean this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier#Discovery_of_the_greenhouse_effect
Next stop ground floor before descent into to basement. The question is “How many levels in this basement?”.
Svante,
the action would be adaptation, which means Venice is even more exotic, and Canada becomes inhabitable. People in developing tropics will need A/C, that is a big deal because it means corrupt governments may fail there.
RCP8.5 is all fantacy, but at multicentennial perspective, people will need in any case to give up and adapt.
Svante, if you are serious about your hypothetical question, then you should expand the questions.
What if every intelligence organization in the world was right – that Saddam Hussein was continuing his quest for WMD? What if the worst scenario became likely? What if we delayed action too long?
What if the Obama administration’s initiative with delinquency in schools (to stop the school-to-prison-express) enabled hostile kids to create great acts of violence rather than being locked up? What if the worst scenario like a Nicholas Cruz became likely?
What if North Korea’s nuclear threat became more real, and the worst scenario became likely? What if the cost of delay increased with every month of inaction?
In every one of those cases, the worst scenario is more likely than the worst scenario of GHG emissions.
Moreover, many actions that we have taken so far in the name of global warming have been more damaging than inaction. Have you seen the destruction of the Amazon subtropics when the U.S. implemented a program to have 30% of transportation fuel be renewable? Have you seen the carcasses of over a million birds and bats due to windmills? Have you seen the environmental wasteland created in China to produce rare earths for our windmills and solar? Do you realize the hundreds of billions spent on global warming would be better spent on much more clear and pressing environmental problems? – e.g., subsidence
of coastal land is more of a problem than sea level rises.
Action taken on global warming is not as likely to benefit the environment as it is likely to benefit those with political power.
It’s the same answer to all your examples.
Define a problem solving method and apply it.
For the DPRK you may use the OODA loop.
If the problem is complicated Divide and Conquer.
Repeat for subproblems, follow up and iterate.
Your last sentence must be addressed by the solution you develop, perhaps as a separate problem.
https://klimaathype.wordpress.com/2017/06/07/rcp8-5-with-temperature-feedback/
The funny thing is that even for Africa there still remains a net positive economic growth relative to 2005, comparable with the unabated world average!
Halved GDP growth over 90 years, that’s a tremendous loss.
Africa has strong population growth. Will this make GDP per capita negative?
(aaayyy!)
With the warm arctic air in recent weeks, it is surprising to see that the NH has dropped to its lowest level in the past year. The cold air from the arctic was re-positioned elsewhere in the NH.
Anytime you hear about the Arctic suddenly surging warm, you can look at a map and see that the cold air is just displaced elsewhere. For the arctic to do that, there has to be a huge influx of warm air moving from south to north, but by mass continuity there has to be an equal amount of cold air moving from the north to the south. It’s global warming “fake news”.
Fake news: “U.S. Average Temperature Plummets to 11 deg. F”
Anytime you hear that the U.S. is suddenly surging cold, you can look at a map and see that the warm air is just displaced elsewhere.
No, mine isn’t global warming fake news because I make no claim about it being related to climate change. Jason Samenow does. Mine is real weather news.
Dr. Spencer
I understood your intent, but I didn’t agree with the generalization:
“Anytime you hear about the Arctic suddenly surging warm……….”
Nor is it fake news when Fox searches hard to find extreme welfare cheats who are illegal immigrants, and gets people riled up.
Nate, people are riled up by the fact that they are ILLEGAL and still reside in the US. Why should I have to show my passport when I enter the US when illegality is condoned (and encouraged) in those sanctuary cities? I am sure that when I make a run for the exit at Kennedy airport bypassing the immigration and customs that I will not be welcome whereas Mexicans are.
Samenow’s WP article links credible research indicating a plausible connection between global warming and the data showing increasing frequency of Arctic warming events. He also discusses the displacement of Arctic air to the temperate regions.
Perhaps I don’t understand the use of “fake news” in this context, but it doesn’t seem appropriate.
Cliff Mass is like Dr. Spencer in that he thinks the media overstates climate change. On the other hand, this is what he says about Arctic warming:
https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2017/11/the-real-signs-of-human-caused-global.html?m=1
snape…”Cliff Mass is like Dr. Spencer in that he thinks the media overstates climate change. On the other hand, this is what he says about Arctic warming:”
The article at your link is full of generalizations and theory. Not an iota of fact to prove the cause. Roy presents valid opinions based on real data.
mark…”Perhaps I dont understand the use of fake news in this context, but it doesnt seem appropriate”.
I thought Roy explained it well. On the UAH global temperature anomaly maps you can actually see the hot spots moving around from month to month. The fake news as I see it is the insinuation that the entire Arctic is warming as a whole, which is false.
Compare this, January 2018:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2018/jan2018/JANUARY%202018.png
to this, January 2017:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2017/january/JANUARY_2017_map.png
and this, May 2017:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2017/may/MAY_2017_map.png
Doesn’t look much like the entire Arctic is warming at all.
More maps:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/archives.html
There is something going on up there but the variability in the warming and the localization, which relocates month to month, is not consistent with anthropogenic warming. It is more consistent with weather patterns moving in from the south and bring pockets of warming with it.
Perhaps as Tsonis et al claimed, the variation in ocean oscillation and their respective phases controls warming/cooling.
Chris,
You may have missed the point, which was that both Roy, and Fox news, work hard to find and show you things that fit your beliefs (Roy: localized cold snaps, Fox: bad hombres). These items are highlighted, even though they may not be representative of typical behavior or trends.
The facts are not fake, but viewers/readers take them as significant and typical, therefore ‘news’, though in fact they are be outliers.
Gord,
Yes, ‘there is something going on up there’
Look here: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
On average this year the temp of polar region has been ~ 10C higher than average of 1958-2002).
Now look back at 2017, 2016, 2015…
Very similar behavior is seen.
snake, you went to all that trouble to try to trap Dr. Roy. But, it exploded in your face.
It’s fun to watch.
Quote of the day (well 2-3 days back):
“Just how hot is the Arctic now?” Peter Gleick, the president-emeritus of the Pacific Institute and a member of the U.S. National Academy of Science tweeted, “Hotter than ever measured in the winter. Human-caused climate change is beginning to radically transform our planet.”
The earth has warmed a fraction of one degree in the last 100 years, and this is a “radical transformation”? I don’t think so. What I do know is that the theory of anthropogenic global warming has been used as a basis to further a pre-existing new world order agenda with the global restribution of wealth, alarmism, fraudulent cap ‘n trade, international agreements, etc.
I also think it’s clear that the earth’s average temperature has never been static; it’s always heading up or down. That means that even if humans weren’t on the planet, there would have been a small temperature deviation over the last 100 years.
About 1 C since 1900.
May not seem like much, but it’s about 20% of the global warming from the bottom of the last ice age to the current interglacial, which took 5000 years. If the rate since 1900 continues until we reach 5 C higher than pre-industrial, warming would be at a rate 8 times faster over the long term than the rate from natural processes.
barry,
You are right. It doesn’t seem like much. That’s because it isn’t.
Only a stupid person thinks they can predict the future by examining the past.
You wouldn’t be stupid enough to try to predict the climate by looking at the past, would you?
Cheers.
“Only a stupid person thinks they can predict the future by examining the past”
Do you think Mr Spencer will appreciate you labelling him as ‘stupid’ by making that claim?
Des,
Another stupid attempt to bend Dr Spencer to your will? If you pay attention, you might realise he is entitled to the appellation of *Doctor*.
Maybe you should check with Dr Spencer whether he believes examining the past enables him to predict the future. Particularly climate states. He may not be as stupid as you imagine. Have you considered this possibility?
If you haven’t, you’ve just demonstrated an adequate, but not superlative, level of stupidity.
Cheers.
You left out “forger of documents”.
garyh…”Peter Gleick, the president-emeritus of the Pacific Institute and a member of the U.S. National Academy of Science tweeted, Hotter than ever measured in the winter. Human-caused climate change is beginning to radically transform our planet.”
Peter sounds like a typical alarmist. No proof, just innuendo and propaganda.
As Roy stated above, the UAH global maps show highly localized Arctic hot spots moving around each month. Gleick makes it sound like the entire Arctic is setting record temperatures, which is a lie.
Peter is a smart fellow, but not a scientist. He’s a science writer. Big difference.
Roy…”Anytime you hear about the Arctic suddenly surging warm, you can look at a map and see that the cold air is just displaced elsewhere”.
Thanks for that explanation. The hot locales in the Arctic do seem to move around month to month on your UAH maps making them appear to be more weather related than a climate change issue. If not weather, then possibly something to do with the oceans.
I have a picture saved of what that looked like at the height of the wind flow. It appeared to compress the cold air onto the Canadian half of the Arctic. The surface wind crossed pretty close to the Russian side all the way to the Bering Straits. The screenshot ended up showing around a 60 40 split between cold/warmer air over the Arctic.
The region of concentrated cold air dropped in temp, perhaps 10 to 15 degrees F as compared to before being compressed. On the Russian side colder air flows pushed out of the way of the warmer crossing surface wind were the added push which enhanced the cold wave moving through Europe.
When the warm flow died down, then the compresed cold region diffused back across to the Russian side. I love earthnullschool. It is a great tool.
I wish journalists would drop the “fake news” and the need to manipulate a gullible population and just go back to seeking the truth. If they do their best job of reporting the truth, everything else will work out in time.
Arctic Sea Ice is very low extent at this time, lower than in 2012.
The “gullible population” only wants to hear/see things that support their beliefs. About half the U.S. population prefers “fake” over reality. They won’t appreciate reality until their “bread and circuses” are gone.
“Only want to hear/see things that support their beliefs.”
Something we agree on, G!
But I am surprised that you dont recognize this behavior in yourself..
Your imagination surprises you again, nat?
I’m not surprised.
For years now, news, especially TV news has been about playing with your emotions. Watch any news show and see. They don’t give you information, they tell you how you should feel.
It’s about ratings – money.
I stopped watching TV, in large part, 45 years ago. I suggest you all do the same.
lewis…”For years now, news, especially TV news has been about playing with your emotions”.
They are selling a product, and unfortunately in this case it’s supposed to be news. We need to remember that the media is largely controlled by corporations out to make a profit. It’s in their best interest profit-wise to spice it up and fake it.
In my neck of the woods, in Vancouver, Canada, the two prominent media outlets have endorsed extreme right wing parties election after election. Had they been interested in just telling the news, rather than creating it, they would have stayed away from endorsing anyone.
The low Arctic sea ice is precisely the reason the temperature anomaly is as high as it is. Even then a value of .20 is hardly a concern.
Since it appears the La Nina is coming to an end there’s a good chance that by summer we will have an absence of factors that affect the global temperature one way or another. The June-August values could be most informative of where we are since low sea ice has much less of an effect at that time.
As the lag seems to be 5 months, you will need to wait until 6 months after the last La Nina month. That rules out June and July already.
Further, you made the claim that the high UAH readings a couple of months ago were caused solely by NEAR El Nino conditions. As your thinking doesn’t exhibit any bias (ahem), then of course you will agree that near La Nina conditions right after the La Nina will still keep global averages lower than the trend. So that rules out August, and probably September.
I use 3-4 months lag as I’ve seen recommended by others and it seems to work well. It was a weak La Nina in any event.
What are you worried about?
5 months gives the strongest correlation.
And it has been a stronger La Nina than your “El Nino conditions” were at the other end of the scale that you claimed were solely responsible for the high anomalies a few months ago.
richard…”The low Arctic sea ice is precisely the reason the temperature anomaly is as high as it is”.
The ice thickness at the North Pole in mid-January 2018, was 3 metres (~10 feet). It’s that way every year simply because there is no solar energy that time of year.
It’s fake news that sea ice extent is any lower or higher than normal mid-winter. With consistent temperatures in the -40C range, why would anyone expect anything different? Does anyone really think less ice forms elsewhere on an ocean subjected to -40C temps?
Those who do are completely unaware that the Arctic Ocean is an extremely dynamic body of water with two major currents operating: the Beaufort Gyre, and the Transpolar Drift. On top of that there are strong winds blowing. The ice gets moved around in circles and piled against shorelines, resulting in ice packs being piled atop each other up to 40 feet in height.
It is well known that the Transpolar Drift dump ice into the North Atlantic. Is anyone seriously counting how much ice moves out of the Arctic Ocean at any particular time?
Dumb dumb says, “Those who do are completely unaware that the Arctic Ocean is an extremely dynamic body of water……..”
Scientists are very aware that, Gordon. Here again is the article I posted for you just last week. (You seriously should get checked for Alzheimer’s)
“Arctic Sea ice extent is virtually impossible to accurately measure from the Earth’s surface. The edges of the ice are ever changing and the sheer size of the ice mass (averaging two and half times the size of Canada) makes it difficult to measure directly on short time scales. To overcome the shortcomings of in situ observations, polar orbiting satellites began collecting data over the Arctic (as well as the Antarctic) in the 1970s. Scientists use radiometry data and visible imagery collected from the satellites to determine the sea ice extent. Each technique has its advantages and disadvantages, and more information can be found through the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Today a suite of NASA, NOAA, and Department of Defense satellites provide the data which is needed to accurately monitor sea ice extent on a daily, monthly, and annual basis.
The transition from icecovered to icefree ocean can occur over a large distance. When measuring the Arctic Sea ice extent from satellites, a threshold of minimum ice concentration is defined to mark where the ice sheet ends. NOAA uses a threshold of 15 percent ice concentration over an areal extent, because it provides the most consistent agreement between satellite and ground observations. At this low ice concentration, ocean waters are generally navigable by ships, one of the earliest motivations for better understanding changes in Arctic ice.”
“At this low ice concentration, ocean waters are generally navigable by ships”
And wouldn’t that be ABSOLUTELY BENEFICIAL to all those people living up there.
Travel, fishing, commerce… all become possible for a slightly longer period.
rather than being ICED IN like they have been since the EXTREME sea ice levels of the late 1970’s… which were up there with the extents of the COLDEST period in 10,000 years, ie the LIA
https://s19.postimg.org/bkgbf2prn/Icelandic_sea_ice_index_2.png
“Dumb dumb says”
Haha – you now have me imagining the denier clan in terms of the chaos in Night at the Museum. I see them as the little men desperately trying to do damage with their unimpressive weapons, dependent on the cool of night for their collective voice to be reanimated.
des…”you now have me imagining the denier clan in terms of the chaos in Night at the Museum”.
And you still have no scientific rebuttal, only ad homs.
Sorry Gordon but your claim is nonsense. You are saying the formation of ice does not depend on the temperature of the water. Beyond silly.
richard…”You are saying the formation of ice does not depend on the temperature of the water. Beyond silly.”
Talk about silly, do you have any idea why ice forms? It’s the air temperature that is in on average near -40C during winter. Cold air sucks heat directly from the ocean and it freezes….to a depth of 10 feet at the North Pole EVERY WINTER.
Unsalted water in liquid state does not have a temperature below ~0C, beyond that it changes phase to ice. The Arctic is salted water which freezes about 1.9C below zero. Arctic ice in winter forms due to a lack of solar energy or very low solar energy. NOTHING else affects that situation, especially a gas making up 0.04% of the atmosphere.
The pockets of warming that do exist do not affect the Arctic as a whole. As Roy claimed, it seems pockets of warmth are moving from the south into the Arctic.
As ren tries to point out, the polar vortex has a lot to say about it.
snape…”Dumb dumb says, Those who do are completely unaware that the Arctic Ocean is an extremely dynamic body of water..”
You should consider a sex change, you sound like a frustrated drag queen.
“Today a suite of NASA, NOAA, and Department of Defense satellites provide the data which is needed to accurately monitor sea ice extent on a daily, monthly, and annual basis”.
I am now to rely on fudged ice data from the chief fudgers of atmospheric surface data. If NOAA admits to discarding over 75% of it surface data and reconstructing it in a model what do you suppose they do with Arctic ice data?
You are about as naive as the day is long and you have the nerve to call me dumb. NOAA et al represent politicians and what politicians want to hear. They pull the wool over your eyes and you have the stupidity to accept it out of an appeal to authority.
Gordon,
Your comments are shockingly stupid and paranoid, which makes me suspect some sort of dementia is involved.
When I make the mistake of reading one of your posts (like looking at a train wreck), I’ve come to realize any sort of rebuttal involving reason or logic is pointless.
On the other hand, an ad hominem insult like dumb dumb, blithering idiot, or total moron offers a small degree of solace.
S,
Only a stupid or ignorant person would get solace from intentionally using an hominem insult, in preference to presenting facts to support their position.
Do you consider yourself stupid? Or just ignorant? Or perhaps both?
Cheers.
The extent is growing. It’s winter you know. So hold your horses on the next September.
But I agree, facts are enough and it helped if journalists concentrated on them.
Arctic Sea Ice is lowest in 40 years
i agree with you in that point
but the ice is thick than 10 years ago
so that is mysterious
Not really. It is wind driven. Winds piling up ice in a smaller area leads to lower extent and increased thickness.
This is why low winter maximums don’t lead to low summer minimums.
Arctic sea ice thickness is not record low, like extent, but it’s still well below the baseline:
http://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/Bpiomas_plot_daily_heff.2sst.png
Using a 1981-2010 baseline with standard deviation is itself garbage science and arbitrary. The earth is billions of years old. The entire notion that one can use such a infinitesimal span of time as a baseline for arctic alarmism is ridiculous. Even a 300 year span of time with accurate data wouldn’t mean a whole lot, let alone 30 years.
Mike,
Most people believe history started the day they were born. Many of them are AGW enthusiasts. Please, mind you manners.
Using a 1981-2010 baseline with standard deviation is itself garbage science and arbitrary
It’s not arbitrary. The satellite record only goes as far back as 1979, and the 30-year baseline is reffed to the satellite record.
barry says:
March 1, 2018 at 8:33 PM
…The satellite record only goes as far back as 1979, and the 30-year baseline is reffed to the satellite record.
Here’s a link to Chapter 7 of the IPCC’s first Assessment report
Scroll down to Page 224 to find:
Figure 7.20 (a) Northern Hemisphere, and (b) Southern
Hemisphere sea-ice extent anomalies. Data from NOAA (USA).
Which clearly shows data back to early ’70s, and about 7 lines below that, the text says:
Especially importantly, satellite observations have been used to map sea-ice extent
routinely since the early 1970s.
I really don’t care much about sea-extent, but I do care about our so-called authorities lying to us. Here’s a Link to
NOAA’s Arctic Report Card 2016
Scroll down to 40/106 to find the text that says:
Sea ice extent has been monitored using passive microwave instruments on satellite platforms since 1979
and below that on page 42/106 figure 4.2.
I expect your 1979 figure ultimately came from a source like that. Not your fault, you and I are both being lied to.
You can use your imagination to come up with a reason why NOAA decided to cut off the first few years of that data.
I don’t need to use my imagination. There’s a reason for it. I looked it up years ago.
But you never did, so that you can continue to imply malfeasance. Very imaginative of you.
Rather than do the work for you, how about you check it out and see if you can discover some facts.
Sure here’s what I find:
Four Decades of Sea Ice From Space: The Beginning
The instrument, the Electrically Scanning Microwave Radiometer (ESMR), launched into space aboard the Nimbus 5 satellite on December 10, 1972 … The game was changed … scientists could now calculate estimated sea ice concentrations within each 18.6-mile (30-kilometer) pixel of the satellite images … Some of the images ESMR provided were sharp. Others had fuzzy pixels or obviously flawed radiation data … We never found the cause of the intermittent glitch … maybe there was a little piece of solder inside the instrument that would occasionally short out something… The microwave radiometer also had a geolocation problem at times it would stick a segment of data in the wrong place. Scientists found and removed the misplaced and flawed data … After years of meticulous work [they] published the ESMR images in two atlases of sea ice … The Soviets were so impressed that they translated them into Russian…The ESMR atlases got a lot of attention because this was the first collection ever of monthly sea ice images that actually showed not only the ice edge which people had known from ships and aircraft but also the ice interior Ships … would take these books with them, because nobody had ever shown them such detail.
So this ESMR data was so great, 30km pixels once a month, that the Russians copied it and ships took it to sea but NOAA discarded it. So far, I haven’t found out why. But you know the answer. You’re going to tell me it’s because of the “Glitch” mentioned in the narrative above or what?
A good article that mentions some of the major issues:
Some of the images ESMR provided were sharp. Others had “fuzzy” pixels or obviously flawed radiation data, recalled Jay Zwally, a senior scientist at Goddard. In 1974, Zwally, a physicist who had been Program Manager for Glaciology and Remote Sensing at the National Science Foundation, came to NASAs Goddard campus attracted by the potential he saw in ESMR for year-round, global observations of sea ice.
“We never found the cause of the intermittent glitch there was speculation that maybe there was a little piece of solder inside the instrument that would occasionally short out something, which would cause the data to be uncalibrated,” Zwally said.
The microwave radiometer also had a geolocation problem at times it would stick a segment of data in the wrong place. Scientists found and removed the misplaced and flawed data.
Incomplete data from Nimbus 5.
On October 24, 1978, NASAs Nimbus 7 satellite launched carrying the Scanning Multichannel Microwave Radiometer (SMMR). Compared to ESMR, SMMRs 10 channels allowed scientists to distinguish young ice that had recently formed from thicker and older ice that had been around for several years.
Data from late 1978 has better resolution.
Unlike the Nimbus 5 and Nimbus 7 missions, separated by a gap of over two years, SSM/I and SMMR overlapped in space for a few months, allowing researchers to compare and calibrate their datasets and create a nearly uninterrupted sea ice record starting in November 1978.
A 2-year gap between Nimbus 5 and Nimbus 7 – the next sea ice monitoring satellite – made intercalibration impossible, and the record much more uncertain prior to Nimbus 7 (launched Oct 1978).
The latter is the major reason that the satellite record begins late 1978, with 1979 being the first full-year of continuous sea ice data.
barry says:
March 6, 2018 at 2:41 AM
A good article that mentions some of the major issues:
A 2-year gap between Nimbus 5 and Nimbus 7 the next sea ice monitoring satellite made intercalibration impossible, and the record much more uncertain prior to Nimbus 7 (launched Oct 1978).
The latter is the major reason that the satellite record begins late 1978, with 1979 being the first full-year of continuous sea ice data.
Doesn’t really explain why The 1973 start point was good enough for:
The 1990 IPPC FAR report Figure 7.20
The 1995 IPPC SAR report Figure 3.8
The 2000 IPCC TAR report Figure 2.14
But it wasn’t good enough for:
The 2007 IPCC AR4 report Figure 4.8
The 2014 IPCC AR5 report Figure 4.4
And it’s really interesting to see how each subsequent variation 1990 to 2014 smooths out the bumps so that the by the AR5 it’s a steady decline.
You know Barry, I’d never looked much at the sea ice issue because why? Dunno didn’t interest me. But today after looking at this sordid little history that apparently has been played out in broad daylight it’s really astounding.
Here are all five figures from above:
LINK
It’s not just NOAA, different institutes that have access to the data from 1972 to present that choose to start the satellite sea ice record in 1979. They all have independently decided that the Nimbus 5 data is too inaccurate to include.
Cryosphere Today
University of Bremen
Danish Meteorological Institute
Arctic ROOS (European)
Polar Science Centre
I speculate that the Nimbus 5 data was earlier included to try and get a longer record, albeit less certain in the mid 70s. As time went by there was enough continuous data to get a more certain data set, so it was dropped.
I don’t see much difference between the profiles on the various graphs. some are monthly anomalies, some annual, some are smoothed, but the general shape hasn’t changed much.
I don’t see what qualitative or quantitative difference it makes whether the poorer Nimbus 5 data is included or not. As they are unable to intercalibrate Nimbus data with later data, it seems like a more rigorous choice to omit it. I could point out that recent sea ice concentration is much lower than in the mid-70s just by looking at the older charts and extending the record to present: however, knowing that there’s no way of calibrating the mid 70s data, one can’t say much about relative concentrations.
There are sea ice constructions that extend back to 1900 using a variety of data. Do you think we should prefer those to the continuous satellite record?
Do you want the infrared and photographic data from 1960s satellite sensors included?
Or do you think that we should omit those other data and tack the Nimbus 5 data onto the beginning of the 1979 data sets and call that the really real satellite record?
To go back to the original point:
“Using a 1981-2010 baseline with standard deviation is itself garbage science and arbitrary. The earth is billions of years old”
the 1981 – 2010 baseline is used because that falls within the satellite sea ice record.
The excursion to the Nimbus 5 data seems a bit of an arbitrary departure. It doesn’t affect the main point.
Have a look at what Antarctic sea ice data looks like if you include the mid-70s data:
https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/images/fig2-16s.gif
The mid-70s data shows much higher concentrations than the rest of the period. Omitting the earlier data erases a decline in sea ice for the Antarctic.
These ‘sordid’ climate scientists have shot themselves in the foot. Maybe there are others reasons why they later omitted data that would have helped push an ‘alarmist’ agenda?
barry says … at 7:29 PM
Its not just NOAA, different institutes that have access to the data from 1972 to present that choose to start the satellite sea ice record in 1979. They all have independently decided that the Nimbus 5 data is too inaccurate to include. Blah … Blah … Blah … Blah … Blah … Blah
That’s right, they all look over each other’s shoulders and follow suit. They all did exactly that regarding the recent “Finding” that sea level is accelerating. I think NASA started the ball rolling on that one. For some reason Colorado University’s Dr. R. Steve Nerem seems to be the anointed one who the media listens to and when he released his findings earlier last month, every left-wing media outlet, which is nearly all of them, ran an above the fold story on it. When are you going to recognize how this all works?
Reading enough to understand this stuff is hard. It just seems like you aren’t able to concentrate hard enough to do that. Intercalibration? To you it’s blah blah blah. Poor data quality? Blah blah blah.
So rather than try to understand you hang on to your predilections and invent stories about conspiracies. I know you can knuckle down if you really want to. You’ve done it before.
You’ve stated that you’ve had little interest in the subject, and it’s safe to assume you haven’t done anything to fill the knowledge hole, so you go for the lazy soundbytes.
Hanging out at Heller’s blog will reinforce your ideology, but you won’t learn much there.
I repeat my question to you:
The mid-70s data that was excluded in later sea ice records shows the Antarctic with high concentrations, and provides a declining trend.
If a warmist agenda benefits from keeping the mid-70s satellite data for Antarctic sea ice, why did they get rid of it, and with it the downward trend?
This doesn’t fit your conspiracy thought bubbles at all. So how do you explain it?
What I explained is the data was good enough for ships and the Russians.
The IPCC’s 2007 AR4 report says:
The most complete record of sea ice extent is provided by passive microwave data from satellites that are available since the early 1970s.
And then they proceed to ignore it in their charts.
Most analyses of variability and trend in ice extent using the satellite record have focussed on the period after 1978 when the satellite sensors have been relatively constant.
That’s all they say.
It is a matter of fact that the IPCC’s AR4 ignores the early ’70s data. You know good enough for the Russians, ships at sea and the three previous IPCC assessment reports but not relatively constant. Why they ignore it is a matter of opinion.
Heaven forfend there would be a legitimate reason.
Let’s campaign to bring the mid-70s data back in, so that we can have a declining trend for Antarctic sea ice. I’m surprised the varmint scientists haven’t thought of the benefits.
Snape, of course it is below the baseline. We are at the maximum effect of the warm phase of the AMO. In case you missed it, warm water melts more ice that cold water.
This is a problem of establishing a baseline using half of a known 60 year cycle. You may call that science, intelligent people just laugh.
Richard
When the next AMO cold phase comes around, maybe sea ice volume/extent will return to normal (relative to the baseline)…….or maybe not. Either way, the baseline is useful as a reference for comparison.
I guess it depends on what baseline you choose. Comparisons will skew one way if your baseline ice thickness covers a cold period and the other way if based on a warm period. I don’t think you can make the case that a 30 year period is even representative of normality when variations in ice occur over thousands of years.
The notches in graphics of TOA radiation flux demonstrate that energy absorbed by ghg at low altitude has been redirected for emission to lower energy wavelengths of water vapor molecules. Thermalization allows the redirection. This explains why CO2 has no significant effect on climate. http://energyredirect3.blogspot.com/
Still above average, test is on.
I am watching overall sea surface temperatures now +.26c above means which is a spike up, I do not think it will last.
Indeed it won’t last. As the MJO heads further east, it will cause a brief return to La Nina conditions (I believe starting almost immediately). The La Nina is likely to break up some time during the next MJO cycle (but not definitely), so after a brief drop in SST, the rise will resume.
Unless this La Nina does something unexpected, you will not see a return to zero SST this time around, and I will be mildly surprised (but not shaken to my foundations) if it drops below +0.1.
BTW … you DO realise that the SST data you access is the same as the NOAA data, right? It has simply been reset to the 1981-2010 baseline instead of the 1901-2000 baseline.
yes, and it is warm no question
Name of game is overall sea surface temperature/ slight albedo changes.
This is more important then even ENSO.
But this result of +.20c for Feb. is just more of the same (limbo)
I fall firmly into the Skeptic / non alarmist / warmist camp.
I notice very little discussion, ever, on human activities (AGW) on anything other than actual Co2 emissions and levels.
Each year globally we asphalt probably 100’s of additional square kilometers, concrete more and growing cities, heat island effects etc.. and the wind ( course ) dispersing this heating effect.
I do wonder also about the 100’s of thousands of vehicles that join the global ” car pool” the vast majority gas powered, annually and each one of them generating some 50kw odd in operation, with the relative radiator heat exchangers dumping heat into the atmosphere,
I would like to hear the take on this from Dr Roy or anyone smarter than me for that matter ( shouldn’t be hard 🙂 )
Cheers all
Brad
regarding fuel use, if we assume virtually all energy consumed is converted to heat, the calculation of how many W/m2 it is equivalent to has been done many times before. I just did it for 2016, and it’s about 0.0034 W/m2 averaged over the US. But let’s say that is mostly generated over 1/1000 of the land area, then it’s 3.4 W/m2 locally. That’s still pretty small.
It’s important, but so are all the irrigation systems spraying water on the wheat fields in flyover country.
No, asphalt, concrete, autos, buses, etc. are NOT important, as far as producing too much heat energy. As Dr. Roy pointed out their total heat energy is insignificant. And remember, Earth is a DYNAMIC system. Any extra heat energy just triggers an increased cooling response. Not a problem, for our planet.
But, irrigating crops IS important for supplying food, and keeping prices reasonable.
“But, irrigating crops IS important for supplying food”
As is ENHANCED atmospheric CO2.
VERY IMPORTANT for keeping yields up.
The IPCC reports have albedo change due to land use as being a net negative contribution to global warming. This would include the reflectivity of asphalt and concrete, but is probably dominated by deforestation/agricultural processes.
There’s also an estimated net increase in CO2 emissions due to land use changes.
Cement production is a surprisingly (to me anyway) large contribution to CO2 emissions.
The reports would reference specific studies estimating such things if you wish to follow up.
MarkB says: “Cement production is a surprisingly (to me anyway) large contribution to CO2 emissions.”
MarkB, the first step in cement production is to heat calcium carbonate (think seashells) to high temperatures to drive off CO2. That process leaves calcium oxide.
Shellfish, like clams and oysters, stole CO2 to make their shells. We’re just returning that CO2 to the atmosphere, so we can have more grapes and hops.
You can now understand the importance of cement production.
g*r…”You can now understand the importance of cement production”.
I understand it dropped somewhat following the Capone era.
G,
Did the rise in sea levels reflect the amount of cement boots produced?
Just goes to show, CO2 can kill.
Cheers.
In contrast to the TLT, the February estimate of global mean surface temperature from UM CCI based on preliminary GFS daily estimates was up +0.058C and from WeatherBELL based on CFSV2 was up +0.075C from January. Graphs here:
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/monthly-trends/
Satellite is the ONLY data I use.
Interesting, Bryan. Thanks for sharing.
bryan…”In contrast to the TLT, the February estimate of global mean surface temperature from UM CCI based on preliminary GFS daily estimates was up +0.058C …”
Why would that surprise anyone?…GFS comes from fudged NOAA data. NOAA managed to ignore the recent extreme cold in North America through their current practice of using only stations showing warming.
Since 0.058C should be considered insignificant, they are claiming virtually no global cooling over a month that saw some of the coldest temperature ever recorded in North America.
Salvatore, I’m sure I’ve seen you using other data sets to check sea surface monthly anomalies.
Ah yes, tropical tidbits.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/#comment-284396
And Weatherbell.
I think it’s going to eventually settle back down to the +0.1 anomaly by this summer, back to where it was before the last major El Nino.
The average for the 2.5 years between the 2011-12 La Nina and the 2015-16 El Nino (allowing for the 5 month lag) was +0.189.
des…”The average for the 2.5 years between the 2011-12 La Nina and the 2015-16 El Nino (allowing for the 5 month lag) was +0.189″.
des the statistician thinks the weather cares about stats.
You seem to forget – we are here to talk about CLIMATE, not weather.
Des,
Are you stupid? Climate is the average of weather. Didnt you know this?
Maybe you need to read up a bit.
Cheers.
I worked in the High Arctic for Environment Canada in the late 70’s….and yes, during the winter, every once in the temps would rocket up to -20C or something and it was sure nice…and the rest of N.A. would be screaming how cold it was….well….we sent it to them….so nothing new here! its happened before…
самые экономичные экскурсии в паттайе
экскурсии в паттайе остров самет
Mr Spencer, would you please remove this spam.
Des doesn’t like Democrat politics.
☺:
☺
(First cup of coffee!)
☺
You think vacations to Pattaya Thailand are “democrat politics”?? How sad.
the UAH LT global anomaly map for January 2018 has where I live in Lincoln UK within a -.5 anomaly area while the met. office has us 3-4 degrees centigrade above average for January only Scotland and some of the hills in Northern England were slightly below normal according to them. Are you telling us we were cold when we were not cold the polar vortex was strong weather was zonal.
Donald
You’re trying to compare apples and oranges. UAH LT baseline is 1981 – 2010. Met.office baseline is 1961 – 1990.
No the baseline used was not the 1961-1990 one it was more recent one and very similar to the UAH LT baseline. It was not cold generally in the UK in January.
Donald
You’re right in that the met.office shows a 1981-2010 baseline for comparison purposes. OTOH, it shows the U.K. January mean anomaly to be 0.4 C
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/summaries/2018/january/regional-values
Yes I was looking at the wrong average but the midlands were still one degree warmer than the 1981-2010 baseline in January 2018
Neither baseline period can be defended as representing a “normal” climate period. They were both arbitrarily selected. Arguing between them is like comparing one apple to another apple picked from the same branch on the same day and ignoring all apple trees on the planet for any other day. 1960-2010 is an arbitrary time period. In fact I would argue that normal climate is what existed 50,000 years ago. That was the middle of a 100,000 year ice age where ice was a mile thick over Chicago. So a few degrees here or there didn’t make the ice fishing any easier.
Will
I don’t disagree, but I thought Donald was trying to compare anomalies from one baseline to another. It turns out that wasn’t the case at all.
donald penman…”the met. office has us 3-4 degrees centigrade above average for January…”
What would you expect from alarmists lead by Phil Jones of Had-crut who have admitted in the Climategate emails to cheating by hiding declining temperatures. What would you expect from an outfit who tried desperately to prevent statistician Steve McIntyre from getting their data for an independent audit.
What would you expect from Phil Jones himself who was caught in the Climategate emails threatening to block papers from skeptics from IPCC reviews using his clout as a Coordinating Lead Author at the reviews?
I don’t trust anything out of the Met office anymore than I trust anything from NOAA or NASA GISS. They are all politically affected and cannot be trusted.
The only honest one of the bunch is UAH.
Bitter cold in the Uk at the moment, with Siberian weather. parts of the country will see 50cm of snow. Central heating just started making funny noises and stopped working. Drainage pipe had frozen and this has never happened before. Now OK and house warming. All the best Tim
tim…”Drainage pipe had frozen and this has never happened before”.
All predicted by the anthropogenic theory, Tim, not to worry.
Couldn’t have been any colder than one summer I spent in a Scottish home with no central heating. ☺
So despite all the pontification, the smearing of characters, the abuse, the stupid arguments the planet still refuses to warm.
I guess the next excuse will be all the heat snuck up to the Arctic where the sats dont measure all that well?
This is groupthink writ large and it will never end will it.
But we need it to get colder, still warm.
Salvatore
Please explain this “need”.
To put to rest AGW theory.
There isn’t a AGW theory, it’s AGW pseudoscience.
It’s a belief, like Marxism.
It’s exactly like expecting to putting to rest the Marxism theory.
The Soviet Union is dead, yet the pseudoscience lives on.
gbaikie…”Its exactly like expecting to putting to rest the Marxism theory.
The Soviet Union is dead, yet the pseudoscience lives on”.
Just to put things in perspective, Marx lived in an era where the ruling class seriously abused the common people, especially the working class. He was courageous to speak out about such abuse.
The Soviet Union of the time were a load of wankers (Bolsheviks) who had not the slightest interest in Marx or his philosophy. They threw socialist and true communists in concentration camps while invoking their terribly warped notions of communism on the Russian people.
In its time, Marxist theory would likely have been welcomed by the downtrodden masses had it been implemented fairly. As it stood, wankers like Stalin used the Russian working class as cheap labour by arresting them for anything imaginable and forcing them to work to their deaths in the gulags.
I have no opinion on Marxist theory as applied to our modern society since it has become a moot point. The working class saw to that, they formed unions and kicked butt till they got the reforms they desired. Ironically, they became fat and lost their interest in fighting for justice.
Least anyone consider this off topic, allow me to point out that said ruling class is behind AGW and they are using it to once again oppress the masses by driving the price of fossil fuel out of reach. Once again, we’ll have to form unions to prevent them destroying the planet with their cooling technology. ☺ ☺ ☺
Presently, the ruling class, abuses common people.
That there is something called a ruling class of the common people is offensive and abusive.
In any reasonable republic, one has a nation ruled by law and citizens vote for leaders which will represents their interests.
Anytime these pols imagine they are ruling rather serving, then lamppost should assigned to them as suitable for their hanging.
Meanwhile, one can’t make the case that the political has seen much improvement from the time of Karl Marx. Any notion that he had any influence towards improvement is utter foolishness.
The reason our world is better is due to property ownership and markets and trade or about the opposite of what Marx prescribed.
But the world’s betterment didn’t include politicians or
“Ruling class” getting any wiser or more attentive to the people they serve.
Salvatore
Thanks for your admission that this entire cooling BS is all about challenging AGW, and of no interest to you in its own right.
Crakar24, I’m beginning to understand their new excuse. The AGW heating is being covered by “natural variation”. IOW, their bogus AGW is saving us from an ice age!
It’s fun to watch.
From the Guardian
Q: Snow in winter. That feels reassuringly normal. Does this mean the climate has fixed itself?
A: Unfortunately not. In fact, many scientists are concerned this is a prelude to more extreme and less predictable weather.
They are desparate to keep the flock in check.
The UK are running out of gas because they shut down their largest storage facility last year.
DA et al will arrive soon telling us weather is not climate dont ya know.
AO is the lowest since October 2017.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/ao.obs.gif
The temperature at the pole dropped.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2018.png
crakar…”From the Guardian”
At one time a respected newspaper, these days a tabloid akin to the National Enquirer.
So despite all the pontification, the smearing of characters, the abuse, the stupid arguments the planet still refuses to warm.
Meaningless comment. Warm or not since when? Last month? Relative to last century, yesterday, last night, your birthday?
The recent decade is the highest decade in the instrumental record. How is that ‘refusing to warm’?
barry…”The recent decade is the highest decade in the instrumental record”.
Correction…in the fudged NOAA record.
It’s the highest decade in the raw data, the non-NOAA records, and also in the satellite records, even your favourite one.
barry,
Are you stupid enough to believe that you can cook a turkey with a magical ice powered cooker?
Or maybe heat a thermometer with a magical CO2 heater?
How stupid would that sound?
Cheers.
barry says:
March 1, 2018 at 9:23 PM
Its the highest decade in the raw data, the non-NOAA records, and also in the satellite records, even your favourite one.
Yes Barry there’s been a warm-up. It should come as no surprise to anyone that during a warm-up, the recent years will be the warmest. It’s sort of like noting that “When more and more people are thrown out of work, unemployment results.” And how much is that warm-up? My sources say it’s about a degree since 1850.
Seems you’ve lost the thread of the conversation.
barry says:
March 7, 2018 at 2:51 AM
Seems youve lost the thread of the conversation.
That’s right I’m four days late and stating that the last decade in a warm-up period is still a tautological bromide.
That’s great. You can let Crakar know. It’s his comment that started this thread.
So despite all the pontification, the smearing of characters, the abuse, the stupid arguments the planet still refuses to warm.
According to SSTs we haven’t seen any warming this century except for temporary El Nino events.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2014/to/offset:-0.3/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2001/to:2014/offset:-0.3/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2001/to:2014/trend/offset:-0.3
Jeepers! Temperatures have plummeted almost half a degree in 6 six months!
As they do when we head into a La Nina. Look at the record – nothing unusual here.
Des, what happened to your 5 month lag? The La Nina did not start until October. According to you the effect shouldn’t have had anything to do with the last 6 months. Your previous claim would only start affecting temperatures next month.
layman…”Temperatures have plummeted almost half a degree in 6 six months!”
It’s been slowly cooling since Feb 2016. The question is, what’s taking it so long? It’s up and down like a yoyo, which is not exactly the sign of anthropogenic warming. Not with a slowly declining trend.
Hahaha … you’ve just complained elsewhere about the length of baseline periods, and here you are using the shortest baseline possible, and one you have cherrypicked.
Des,
Only stupid people would think that they can change facts by criticizing someone else. Are you stupid enough to claim you can make a thermometer hotter by surrounding it with CO2?
Hahahahaha!!!
How stupid would that be?
Cheers.
My guesstimate was +0.21, so I did a lot better than last month.
Of course we will expect the UAH anomaly to fall for a few months yet, probably falling below 0.1, and with an outside chance of going negative before we return to ENSO-neutral conditions.
Des. we AGREE, pretty closely!
Will stars fall from the sky?
Will stars fall from the sky when you kick the bucket?
Try to stick to the facts instead of comparing to ridiculous scenarios. Hyperbole is for people who are short on facts.
Des,
Are you stupid enough to believe that you can heat water by surrounding it with ice? Or can you only heat some things with colder things?
How stupid do you have to be believe such nonsense?
Cheers.
You appear to have responded to the wrong comment.
Des,
If you believe that, you are definitely stupid.
Cheers.
Another month of above normal temps.
What is that now — 390 in a row?
If that is not global warming, I don’t know what is.
D,
What is your point? Are you claiming that CO2 makes thermometers hotter?
I’d like to see someone demonstrate that! Sounds like magic or wishful thinking.
Definitely not science.
Cheers.
I’m wondering about the “390 in a row”?
If that is not a failure in arithmetic, I don’t know what is.
G*
Wrong data set, but the math is close.
Last month with a negative monthly anomaly:
NOAA) February 1985.
NASA) July 1985
1985 was a la nina year
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml
I’m still wondering about the “390 in a row”.
“This is the sort of common sense reasoning we should listen to, rather than so-called experts on the climate, whose only qualification is theyve spent their entire life studying the climate.
This is from a news item in the UK Independent newspaper.
The rest of it strikes me as quite amusing, although maybe not so much for AGW enthusiasts.
Cheers.
It’s satirizing the contrarian view, such as Nigel Farrage’s. Quite funny that you’ve taken the humour completely the wrong way.
Plenty in there for ‘AGW enthusiasts’ to enjoy.
barry,
There is no contrarian view. Facts are facts. Anybody that thinks otherwise is stupid.
Facts are not climate computer models or the opinions of self proclaimed climate experts. Anybody that thinks they are is stupid.
Cheers.
There is no contrarian view.
There is no coherent contrarian view. But the varying and often contradictory strands boil down to a rejection of the mainstream view that more GHGs warm the planet with potentially deleterious results.
As for ‘facts’, the contrarian view/s are at best extremely selective with those, and at worst simply ignorant of them.
If you’re in any doubt, just read the link string.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/nigel-farage-climate-change-denier-global-warming-ukip-leader-environment-right-wing-a8235006.html
And others can read the article now that a link is provided and enjoy 1) some fairly good satire, and 2) Flynn’s abysmal comprehension of it.
Thanks for the link, a mildly teasing twitter observation by Farage that the climate seemed to be doing what it has always done (he wasn’t trying to prove or disprove anything), is the basis of long feeble attempt at satire — or maybe the humour went over my head.
Farrage has form as contrarian on climate change. If his remark was jocular, then a satirical reply seems fitting.
July 1985 to February 2018 = 391 months of above normal temps.
You’d best name your data set. That’s not true for the data set maintained by the blog owner (look at the chart right at the top).
Of course, the difference is purely down to a baselining choice. Long-term trends are what matter.
barry…”Of course, the difference is purely down to a baselining choice. Long-term trends are what matter”.
Could it have something to do with the extensive coverage of satellites (95%) and the greater accuracy due to a far superior sampling method?
I can’t see what baseline has to do with it since the UAH baseline covers almost the entire range of the data, as opposed to the surface stations where it covers only a small portion of the range.
Really Gordon? So what fraction of NOAA’s 1901-2000 baseline does UAH cover?
Des,
Why would anybody who is not stupid care? Do you care?
Cheers.
I don’t care. I was simply playing along with someone who does. I’m sure he will appreciate your label.
Des,
So you’re not serious? Simply playing along – just being stupid, I suppose.
What happened to your interest in discussing science? Stupid to expect you to be consistent.
Can you think of a better word to describe your stupidity?
Cheers.
Could it have something to do with the extensive coverage of satellites (95%) and the greater accuracy due to a far superior sampling method?
No.
A different baseline merely changes where the zero line sits. UAH zero line is higher than the surface data sets, and that’s entirely the reason why UAH have negative anomalies in more recent times than surface data sets.
barry,
Anybody stupid enough to believe that future states of a deterministic chaotic system are predictable is just stupid.
Even the IPCC has stated this, and the people who make up the IPCC are not generally regarded as having first rate minds. This shows that even not terribly bright people can connect to reality on occasion.
Are you stupid enough to claim that the IPCC is more stupid than you, or vice verse?
Cheers,
barry,
The long term is four and a half billion years or so. Anything shorter is stupid sherry picking. I’m glad you agree.
Cheers.
Sherry picking? No wonder you always appear tipsy.
des,
You are right.
Of course I meant to say that stupid people cherry pick. Mind you, they might not know the difference between sherry and cherry – they dont know the difference between cooling and warming do they?
Ill repeat it, just in case you dont know the difference – stupid people think the Earth has not cooled over the long term.
Even more stupid, some even claim the Earth should be 760 000 K, and are stupefied that it isnt!
Stupid, I know.
Cheers.
Thanks for confirming my suspicions about the drunken nature of your comments.
Des,
You must be stupid.
Pretending to want to discuss science, but then making stupid irrelevant comments.
Keep it up.
Cheers.
No irrelevent science so far this month. Let’s keep it that way.
Des,
That’s just the sort of stupid remark a stupid person who couldn’t produce any science would make.
A stupid person trying to look intelligent, that is.
Cheers.
Why is it ‘stupid’ to request that we don’t talk about irrelevant science that has overtaken the forum such as whether the moon rotates, and stick to RELEVANT science instead?
Des,
I could point out that you didnt spell irrelevant correctly, but I’m far too polite.
But your request, as you put it, didnt actually contain the word request. As to science, only a stupid person would believe that endlessly re examining and re analyzing historic temperature records counts as science.
A stupid person would put the word relevant in upper case, but wouldnt actually specify what this supposed relevant science was. They would just try to appear intelligent.
Stupid.
Cheers.
So you don’t even understand what would be considered relevant science on this website. How sad.
And while we are being polite about spelling mistakes, I’d better not point out that “didn’t” and “wouldn’t” contain apostrophes.
Des,
You are stupid if you think that. You think that studying the average of weather is a science – how stupid would somebody have to be to believe such a ridiculous proposition?
You can point out what you like – I’d prefer it if WordPress showed the apostrophes I provide.
You can’t even provide a testable GHE hypothesis, so you resort to stupid sniping.
Maybe you think that demonstrates superior intelligence. It seems stupid to me.
Do you know what science is? Do you know what the scientific method involves? Or are you one of the stupid people who thinks such things are irrelevant?
Cheers.
“It seems stupid to me.”
Apparently everything appears stupid to you. Except, I’m guessing, belief in the existence of a fictitious god.
Des doesn’t understand why it was important to “talk about irrelevant science that has overtaken the forum such as whether the moon rotates.”
Des, the Moon/axis discussion ended up identifying those folks that cannot think for themselves. Many made fools of themselves by claiming a horse “rotates on its axis” as it runs an oval racetrack. You can say that a certain person is “stupid”, but there’s nothing like letting that person prove it.
It’s fun to watch.
Yes, those people were clearly identified. Now that this is done, I assume those non-thinkers like yourself will allow the rest of us to get on with our discussion.
D,
Oh goody. A stupidity consensus. It doesn’t matter if 97% agree how intelligent they are, they remain stupid
Cheers.
Well des, if you did not want to discuss Moon/axis, why did you bring it up?
That was kinda stupid, wasn’t it?
Here is g* in the process of studying kinematics:
https://tinyurl.com/yca7aqd9
SGW continues to amaze us with his fascination with frivolity.
Doubtless he will ever outgrow it.
It’s fun to watch.
The discussion ended with g* getting a whupping, not able to answer A B or C. and leaving with his tail between his legs.
Hilarious.
SGW, your philistinism, combined with your imagination, make for great comedy.
More please.
Turnip Boy,
We are all still waiting back in the Temp Update For January post.
A, B, or C. Which are rotating on their axis?
Very simple, except for simpleton Turnip Boy.
It’s fun to watch Turnip Boy crash and burn.
SGW,
Is there a point to your comment, or is it just another stupid and pathetic attempt at being gratuitously offensive?
What is the relevance of the Moons apparent rotation to the inability of anyone to even describe the GHE?
Cheers.
MikeR,
I don’t care what the #$%& you think.
SGW,
I assume that you are attempting to respond to me.
Why do you think anybody cares whether you care what I think or not? Are you stupid enough to think you are important, or that your opinion counts for something amongst the non-stupid community?
That would be stupid, wouldn’t it?
Learn some physics. Read where the IPCC states that the prediction of future climate states is impossible. See if you can figure out some way to predict the future.
Cheers.
Then don’t the $#%$ respond to me if you have nothing to say. What a moron.
SGW,
Have you not yet realised that I don’t dance to the tune of the stupid or foolish?
Hurling implied imprecations at me won’t cure your stupidity. It’s not my fault you are stupid.
Cheers.
SGW “lost it” when I presented the example of a toy train. That simple example ruined the “rotators”.
SGW, and others with similar inability to think for themselves, will likely require years of therapy.
It’s fun to watch.
Turnip Boy,
A, B or C?
LMAO. What a loser.
Mike,
You were not even part of the kinematic discussion.
If you want to defend g*’s ignorant kinematic pseudoscience, go back to the January temperature update post and make stupid comments there. Don’t pollute this post with nonsense.
SGW can’t sleep because he’s afraid that train will run over him. And, that’s not to mention his foaming at the mouth.
It’s fun to watch.
SGW,
How stupid would someone have to be to take any notice of your stupid commands?
More stupid than you? Such a person might be hard to find.
Cheers.
Dear Mikey,
So far you have not made one substantive comment. You just butted in on a conversation you are clueless about.
Please by all means keep up the drivel.
“How stupid would someone have to be to take any notice of your stupid commands?
More stupid than you? Such a person might be hard to find.”
Mike, maybe you need to get an SAT study to learn some new descriptive words.
Strong blizzards in France and Belgium. Very strong snowfall in the French Alps.
http://oi68.tinypic.com/35d3n7q.jpg
A snowstorm is developing in the northeast of the US.
http://oi64.tinypic.com/1t1mjs.jpg
Greenland up to 19C above average.
Mumbai – average for last week 7C above average.
Victoria Australia (home of 1000frolly) – earlier this week up to 11C above average.
We can all play the cherry picking game. But I have to admit, you play it so much better than me.
Do you see this strong high above Greenland?
http://www.dmi.dk/uploads/tx_dmidatastore/webservice/c/b/0/b/b/5a98bda5bb0bc.png
Let me get this right – my cherry picking can be explained away as just weather – yours can’t?
D,
Yours is just stupid. Don’t you know that climate is just the average of weather?
Some stupid people seem to think that weather is controlled by climate.
Cheers.
I’ll wait for you to explain succinctly why that logic doesn’t apply to ren’s cherry picking.
(I’ll wait a bit longer for you to Google ‘succinctly’.)
D,
Only someone stupid would wait wait for an explanation he knows won’t be forthcoming.
That would be you.
Cheers.
Come on mate … you have shown such an ability to spin your way out of anything.
D,
As I said, it’s just stupid for you to waste time in the expectation that fantasy will become fact.
Not scientific at all. Just stupid.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn’s word of the month: “stupid”.
I guess the novelty of his new vocabulary addition will eventually wear off.
This is the temperature in Greenland.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/orthographic=-39.71,70.31,684/loc=-38.047,70.633
When have you seen such a low index AO?
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/ao.obs.gif
ren
“When have you seen such a low index AO?”
When has the index fallen below -4 ?
(Ignoring 1 or 2 day events):
2016 Jan 15-17 (lowest value -4.9)
2013 Mar 18-26 (lowest -5.7)
2010 Dec 17-21 (-5.3)
2010 Feb 5-24 (-5.2) … FEB MONTHLY AVERAGE -4.3
2010 Jan 1-7 (-5.5)
2009 Dec 18-26 (-5.8)
2002 Oct 16-20 (-5.1)
2001 Feb 24-26 (-4.9)
2000 Dec 23-30 (-4.7)
1995 Dec 18-21 (-4.4)
1985 Nov 24-26 (-4.6)
1985 Jan 17-21 (-6.2)
1981 Mar 4-6 (-4.3)
1978 Feb 2-13 (-5.3)
1977 Jan 27 – Feb 1 (-4.5)
1977 Jan 10-18 (-7.4) … RECORD LOW
1976 Dec 27-30 (-5.3)
1970 Mar 3-13 (-6.4)
1969 Feb 12-19 (-5.3)
1969 Jan 9-20 (-4.8)
1968 Dec 26-29 (-4.5)
1966 Jan 11-29 (-5.1)
1963 Feb 1-6 (-4.5)
1963 Jan 19-21 (-5.0)
1959 Nov 13-20 (-5.9)
1957 Feb 19-22 (-4.5)
1956 Feb 13-15 (-4.6)
1950 Dec 23-27 (-4.4)
Perhaps you should have checked before asking that question.
Thanks.
2016 Jan 15-17 (lowest value -4.9)
Des,
Your stupid guess is just that.
Stupid. Or are you claiming you can read my mind?
Cheers.
Current tally for “stupid” by MF: 32
You would think an intelligent person would have a more expansive vocabulary.
Des,
Only a stupid person would waste their time counting words, after complaining about other people not discussing supposed science!
Or is that the mark of extremely intelligent stupid waste of time?
Keep counting.
Cheers.
34
Oops – 39.
Maybe ‘foolish warmist’ was put for one or two days on this site’s ban list.
I would enjoy ‘Idiot’ and ‘pseudoscience’ landing there too – forever.
La P,
Or maybe it wasnt. Have you tried to find out, or are you stupid enough to think people will take your implication as truth?
Maybe you could ask Dr Spencer? Then you wouldnt have to guess, would you?
Stupid is as stupid does. Trying to suppress the truth is stupid. And if you do not know the facts, (and of course you dont), then trying to suppress things purely on the basis that you don’t like them is really stupid.
Even a stupid person should realise that, but of course many stupid people are too stupid to realise just how stupid they are!
Have you considered learning some physics?
Cheers.
Dr. Roy Spencer in seven days arctic air can reach Alabama.
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00960/bmujg2mt2w7s.gif
Well during winter without any sun warmer air can only be heated elsewhere. Also note we are still well below freezing.
People were also stuck in their cars overnight due to the ‘apocalyptic’ snow which hit the motorways and railways across the country.
The military was drafted in to rescue people from their vehicles, and some were only able to leave their cars this morning.
The Met Office has warned of treacherous conditions caused by freezing rain which creates invisible sheet ice. This weather is hitting all parts of the UK and can cause deadly conditions on the road.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/03/02/uk-weather-military-helps-stranded-motorists-storm-emma-collides/
tom0mason says:
March 2, 2018 at 7:10 pm
People here may be interested in this
Sub zero UK-CET means for the last day of the meteorological winter (28th or 29th Feb)
1783: -0.1
1785: -3.8
1786: -0.9
1795: -1.0
1796: -0.3
1800: -0.2
1816: -0.5
1866: -3.2
1875: -0.3
1877: -1.0
1881: -0.1
1886: -0.3
1904: -2.9
1929: -1.7
1946: -0.8
1955: -2.3
2018: -3.6
Does that make Feb 28th, 2018 unprecedented?
Indeed. It is the first time we have ever experienced Feb 28th 2018.
Recently I read in news, that north pole had reached 0 C and it isn’t spring yet. So it’s during the time of the winter night.
Assuming the news is accurate (and as far as I am aware, air temperature is not being recorded at north pole, so there more
than normal, reason to have degree of doubt about any news)
how does the north pole warm?
One could say it’s perfectly normal for the north pole to warm during it’s 6 months of darkness. Or it’s not normal for temperature at north pole to only drop in temperatures once the Sun drops below the horizon for 6 months between the start Fall and Spring. Or one has weather everywhere on Earth.
The news stories may mention polar vortex bringing polar cold air down and warm air replacing the once colder air.
And the only thing vaguely unusual is the amount cold air leaving polar region and being replaced with warmer air.
So how does the north pole warm so much that it’s 0 C (assuming it was or is this warm)?
It is only a matter of circulation in the polar vortex.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2018.png
30 hPa and 10 hPa (approx. 30 km) representing the middle stratosphere.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/temperature/30mb9065.png
5 hPa, 2 hPa (approx. 42 km), and 1 hPa representing the upper stratosphere.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/temperature/05mb9065.png
gbaikie says:
March 2, 2018 at 1:59 PM
So how does the north pole warm so much that its 0 C (assuming it was or is this warm)?
*
gbaikie, the North Pole certainly does NOT warm by itself. Thus, if it is, then certainly because
– warmth was brought there from elsewhere e.g. by advection
and
– for whatever reason, it can’t escape to outer space.
Since warmth can be evacuated to outer space via radiation only, maybe a layer somewhere in the atmosphere captures and reemits this infrared radiation at a higher rate than usual.
Maybe the water vapor and carbon dioxide concentrations above the Arctic region have increased recently. Who knows?
*
This does not at all happen for the first time. Look at:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1520032959726.jpg
and you see NOAA Arctic anomalies wrt UAH’s baseline (1981-2010) far above those measured right now.
If we execute a descending sort on these monthly anomalies, we see this:
1981 | 1 | 4.02
1934 | 2 | 3.56
2017 | 3 | 3.12
2016 | 2 | 3.10
2007 | 1 | 3.03
2016 | 1 | 2.99
1930 | 1 | 2.91
1989 | 2 | 2.90
2007 | 4 | 2.86
1990 | 3 | 2.84
1935 | 2 | 2.66
1995 | 2 | 2.62
2010 | 11 | 2.46
2016 | 3 | 2.44
2011 | 3 | 2.34
1937 | 1 | 2.34
2006 | 12 | 2.28
1942 | 1 | 2.26
2016 | 4 | 2.26
1955 | 1 | 2.24
2015 | 2 | 2.24
1903 | 2 | 2.22
2005 | 11 | 2.19
2014 | 3 | 2.17
1939 | 12 | 2.16
As you can see, not one anomaly in this top 25 list belongs to the months may till october.
Thus one might conclude that locks of exceeding warmth in the Arctic are a winter phenomenon.
La P,
So your supposedly brilliant reasoning depends on magic – you said * for whatever reason, it cant escape to outer space*
Just stupid. Just as stupid as the Earths temperature reaching 760 000 , using the same magical reasoning” – (or lack thereof.)
Sort your numbers – as repetitively as you like. Still stupid.
Try real physics – not the physics of stupidity where energy can be held in limbo until required.
Cheers.
gbaikie…”Recently I read in news, that north pole had reached 0 C and it isnt spring yet. So its during the time of the winter night”.
I was reading a book by an adventurer walking to the North Pole to prove a claim of Peary that he’d done it in such and such a time. This explorer was a climate alarmist but he did comment on the NP and it’s propensity for warming suddenly mid-winter. He explained it in relation to ocean currents and or winds.
The author is Tom Avery and the book titled ‘To The End of the Earth: Our Epic Journey To The North Pole’.
The recent warming at the NP mid-winter is put down to a sudden storm bringing in warm air. It lasted a day or so and temperatures returned abruptly to the -30C range.
I didn’t realize that warming lasts such short periods of time. In way that’s more odd.
Does anyone know if Antarctica has similar rapid and large shifts in air temperature? During winter and is warming?
Of course, a sudden warming of the stratosphere occurs above the southern polar circle in winter. However, the southern polar vortex is stronger than the northern one. Northern polar vortex has a tendency to divide into two centers – above northern Canada and above Siberia.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_SH_2010.gif
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_SH_2012.gif
Thanks again Dr. Spencer, I appreciate the work that you and Dr. Christy do. I have been interested in climate change since 2005 and like most I have my opinions. Here is my idea on where this subject needs to go. 1) The conversation needs to be removed from the political sphere. I know, it’s not going to happen as climate (and other) science has become a politicized nightmare. But in order for the science to progress we need to lay down our political labels and sides and let science work. 2) We need more and better data. I will use the ARGO floats as an example. In time ARGO should provide some good data on what the oceans temps are doing. The same with your satellite data which is relatively new. 3) We need to stop trying to make definitive statements where none exist. Computer modeling is fine but the averaging of hundreds of model runs and then using this to forecast, predict, project, or whatever term the pedants want to use seems like a bunch of nonsense. Lets be honest, nobody really knows what the climate will look like in 100 years. 4) The science needs to move away from the constant statistical re-analysis of the same data sets. I am not against using the statistical tools but when I see the same data being used to defend multiple positions on the same subject it looks more like curve fitting to confirm a held belief than science. I look at it this way. If I can’t use the science to make an airplane fly then it’s not an established truth. That’s my standard. Would anybody strap a seat to a climate model and trust it to make it across the ocean at FL370? Or how about 400 seats? Instead of climate models I could say the same about flying the Iris effect or Stadium Waves or cosmic ray cloud theory. I sure the heck wouldn’t trust the hockey stick to get me to my vacation destination.
Enough blathering, I hope I didn’t offend.
eric h…”The science needs to move away from the constant statistical re-analysis of the same data sets. I am not against using the statistical tools but when I see the same data being used to defend multiple positions on the same subject it looks more like curve fitting to confirm a held belief than science. I look at it this way”.
Agree with your statements in general but this one in particular. It’s particularly true when major data acquisition outfits like NOAA use statistical analysis to go back in the history and amend data to what they think it should have been.
I feel all the major surface data sets are so corrupt as to be useless. Phil Jones, the head of Had-crut has admitted to changing data retroactively and losing the originals. NASA GISS, and now NOAA, have tried to change the warmest year in the US from 1934 to 1998, or 2006, even though 1934 is known to have been 0.5C warmer than 1998 in the US.
2006 makes no sense, it’s shown in the UAH data as being well below 1998, 2016, and even 2010.
The UAH record for the US has these as the 7 highest ranked anomalies:
2015: 0.75
2017: 0.71
2016: 0.63
2012: 0.63
2007: 0.50
1998: 0.46
2006: 0.32
https://tinyurl.com/y9dkt5vc
1934 is known to have been 0.5C warmer than 1998 in the US
How is this “known?”
The WindTy app website is a good tool to watch where the global winds are moving to/from. Just set the parameters to 3D and select wind and play with the altitude setting. You can then follow air moving from
lows to highs.
Last week I was watching air moving north from a huge mid latitude Atlantic low where it circles the Arctic and decended over Siberia in a high flowing westward. Most of the movement seemed to be between 5 &10,000 mtrs ASL.
cloudbase…
Pretty impressive, thanks for tip.
https://www.windy.com/?46.559,-138.604,3
If you didn’t already find it Gordon the 3D feature can be found by clicking on the Menu link (3bars at the top left) and then into the Menu dropdown. I find it way clearer to understand when the Earth is visualised as a globe. Funny that ! 😉
Flynn
The amount of comments containing the word ‘stupid’ you recently posted moves up to a really crank level.
You are abusing Roy Spencer’s tolerance in a definitely disgusting manner.
I tell you again, Flynn: be courageous, and try to pollute e.g. Anthony Watt’s WUWT in the same manner.
Or would you prefer to spot Prof. Curry’s Climate etc with your feces?
Feel free to do! But… I know you won’t. Missing cojones.
La P,
Are you putting on a facade of stupidity, or are you showing your true face?
Your comments are just stupid. You must be exceptionally stupid if you think I am likely to take any notice of what you tell me – even if you tell me again! Oh dear!
Why should should I take any notice of a stupid person who believes in magic?
I suppose you might just be stupid enough to think I allow myself to feel insulted, offended, or upset by remarks from stupid people. Why should I?
If you are trying to be gratuitously offensive, maybe you are stupid enough to think you are being effective. You have a long way to go.
Cheers.
binny…”You are abusing Roy Spencers tolerance in a definitely disgusting manner”.
Thanks for your Teutonic whine, based on a Teutonic appeal to authority. If Roy wants to ban me, I won’t hold it against him. Can we leave it up to him rather than you kissing butt because your nose is out of joint for being called stupid?
I am aware of the flames thrown around here and for me it’s part and parcel of participating in a blog. It comes down to emotions. I don’t regard this repartee as a harmless debate, I see it as a load of narrow-minded bigots creating pseudo-science while creating climate alarm.
I am looking at the overall effect it is having and none of it is based on concrete science. Alarmists are driving up the price of fossil fuels and in my home city, the idiots running the city have a goal of driving people out of their cars to protect the environment.
I use words like idiot and stupid to describe the inane bs emanating from alarmists but I wish I could say what I really think. I think you lot are dangerous SOBs who are imperiling the lives of the poor by forcing them to cut their home heating bills because they can no longer afford fuel.
We have a large electrical network here and one would think that would be cheaper than fossil fuels. Wrong, it’s far cheaper to heat a home with natural gas than electricity and now you idiots want to drive up the price of fossil fuels so we’ll stop using it.
Who asked you? I have never seen a vote on this and I am sure any Canadian government running on jacking the price of fossil fuels would lose badly.
” I have never seen a vote on this and I am sure any Canadian government running on jacking the price of fossil fuels would lose badly”
If only that were true… Our current federal govt did indeed run on this and is forcing carbon taxes on all provinces… Gasoline in mb went up 4 cents per litre when the provincial govt finally caved to the federal pressure..
The response from Ottawa? Mb didnt raise price of carbon enough and is again pressuring us to raise this outrageous tax….
phil j …”The response from Ottawa? Mb didnt raise price of carbon enough and is again pressuring us to raise this outrageous tax.”
As you know, the minister in charge of the carbon taxes, Catherine McKenna, is called a Climate Barbie. She is a naive cheerleader for the eco-alatmists. Calling her a Barbie, as in Barbie Doll, is apt.
I don’t support Trump politically but I was delighted when he beat Clinton to put an end to this catastrophic climate propaganda. I was beginning to support Harper for the same reason. Too bad he is out of the picture, I don’t think the Tories have a candidate who can beat Trudeau, and that’s not saying a lot for their ability to adapt in order to regain power.
I sure hope youre wrong about that… The Liberals will gladly bend over for the UN and give away our sovereignty and freedoms….
Wasnt one of their first moves in office to put billions into a UN slush fund for ‘climate change’ ?
Bin, Pang, Rose, or whatever screen name you prefer, if you want a highly censored blog like WUWT, where you will never see REAL science, then go there.
Dr Roy allows an open debate. If your pseudoscience fails, and it makes you angry, blame your pseudoscience, not the blog.
Glad to help.
binny…”I tell you again, Flynn: be courageous, and try to pollute e.g. Anthony Watts WUWT in the same manner.
Or would you prefer to spot Prof. Currys Climate etc with your feces?”
There would be no need to flame anyone on WUWT since they seem to have intelligent commentary in which people will discuss scientific matters in a genteel manner. I have tried that here and get rebutted with ad homs, appeals to authority, and general pseudo-science.
On many occasions I have been told I am wrong simply because someone thought he/she knew better. When I have presented evidence to the contrary, they moved the goalposts.
When it becomes obvious that scientific discussion is not the goal, that’s when the ‘idiot’ and ‘stupid’ comes into play.
You have a habit of taking an authoritative position and you defend authoritative positions even when evidence is presented to you to the contrary. You have no interest in debating a scientific point, you have a myopic POV and you are not willing to expand your horizons.
Above, snape called me dumb dumb for pointing out that ice will form each year on the Arctic Ocean to depths of 10 feet because there is no solar energy or a lack of it. He rebutted with a comment googled from NOAA which claimed ships can sail through the Arctic in lower ice conditions.
That’s been the case since the 1600s…during the summer. Had they known the direction to take through the NW Passage they could have sailed through in the summer during the 1600s.
One ship sailed down the Lancaster Sound for several hundred miles then turned around because they sighted mountains in the distance, thinking they were hemmed in. The mountains turned out to be an island, leaving them two choices. One path went north, the other south. Had they flipped a coin and gone south, they’d have made it right through to the Pacific.
However, many of them died when the ice socked in and crushed their ships. They stayed too long.
It is completely stupid and idiotic to claim low ice conditions in the Arctic are due to anthropogenic warming. There is not the slightest iota of proof, nor does the evidence support the theory.
I want to discuss what is really going on. Ren provides good information about the polar vortex yet many alarmists try to deter him as a nuisance factor. rRn is way ahead of any of you alarmists.
snape calls me dumb deumb then posts this paragraph taken totally out of context. As is the case with most alarmists I have encountered regarding the Arctic, they extrapolate 1 month of relatively low ice conditions in the Arctic summer to the entire year and hope to sneak it past us.
“At this low ice concentration, ocean waters are generally navigable by ships, one of the earliest motivations for better understanding changes in Arctic ice”
Snape…you need more than a sex change you need a brain transplant. You blithering idiot, they are talking about summer ice levels not the winter ice levels to which I referred.
NO ONE SAILS ANY KIND OF SHIP THROUGH THE ARCTIC OCEAN IN WINTER CONDITIONS.
Give your head a shake and get off this utter stupidity. You can walk from the norther coast of Canada to the North Pole in mid-winter and likely right across to Siberia. Try sailing even an ice breaker through that and the ice will wrap it up and crush its hull.
Dumb dumb says,
“Snape calls me dumb deumb then posts this paragraph taken totally out of context.”
No Gordon, it is you who did not understand the context:
“NOAA uses a threshold of 15 percent ice concentration over an areal extent, because it provides the most consistent agreement between satellite and ground observations. At this low ice concentration, ocean waters are generally navigable by ships, one of the earliest motivations for better understanding changes in Arctic ice.
This is saying the ocean is navigable when there is 15 % or less sea ice concentration.
Flynn & Robertson
I have understood why Roy Spencer felt some years ago the need to ban any appearance of Do-ug Cot-ton out of his site.
I would enjoy him taking a similar decision concerning people like you: for the sake of mental hygiene.
Time will tell, as our dear Salvatore so nicely writes…
Rose J. Koelm
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2018-0-20-deg-c/#comment-290362
But g*e*r*a*n! What’s the matter with you?
I don’t blame this blog, and Roy Spencer the least, who just wrote a couple of splendid lukewarmer threads about his 1D Model of Global Temperature Changes.
That was a highlight (maybe for pseudoskeptics it was not).
La P,
Stupid again. You cant even define what a pseudoskeptic is, can you? You just hope that someone will think you are rational and intelligent, rather than stupid.
It wont work with rational people. They will just think you are stupid (or maybe deluded).
Dr Spencer probably appreciates your flattery. Your good opinion might mean the world to him. Or maybe not.
I do not know.
Cheers.
The problem is with you, pang.
You pretend to be “neutral”, but you are not. You believe in the pseudoscience. You won’t admit to your addiction, but it is evident for all to see.
Try to avoid overdosing.
Hope that helps.
You have those accounts working together like a well oiled machine. It can’t leave you much time for ….. ahhh … what DO you do?
D,
Just more stupidity, I see. No science. Don’t you have any to talk about?
Cheers.
La P,
You really are stupid, aren’t you?
Throwing in a meaningless, yet strangely stupid term like mental hygiene. Do you think it will make you appear more intelligent?
Try throwing a tantrum, and threaten to leave if your demands aren’t met. I don’t care if you don’t like me. Neither does Nature.
Cheers.
Bark bark bark…
Always the same blah bah.
Dogs really do better than you, Flynn.
Gute Nacht.
La P,
Just stupid.
But woof, woof, to you too, if that’s all you understand. Ive owned and trained dogs that were smarter than a stupid person. Only a stupid would try to outrun a trained attack dog. Some tried.
Try saying bark, bark, bark in that situation. That would sort out whos the more stupid – you or the dog!
Cheers.
81
D,
Oooooh! Trying to be cryptic?
At least it shows how stupid you are! No science?
Cheers.
Mike says,
“Ive owned and trained dogs that were smarter than a stupid person”
I suspect the stupid person was their trainer.
Snape,
That’s just a stupid comment, isn’t it?
Trying to imply that your suspicions are meaningful is stupid. Who would take any notice?
In any case, your comment is a master stroke of irrelevancy, isn’t it?
If my dogs do as I ask, what is your point? Just demonstrating ever increasing heights of stupidity?
Keep at it.
Cheers.
binny…”I have understood why Roy Spencer felt some years ago the need to ban any appearance of Do-ug Cot-ton out of his site”.
You are allowing your bitterness to lead you astray.
Do-ug wasn’t a bad guy overall, he just had a propensity for zoning in on his pet theories and going on about them almost incoherently at times. He had his own site and often referred people to articles he had written.
I thought he was on the right track. He recognized the problems with AGW and if he’d been somewhat milder with his rants I’m sure Roy would not have had an issue with him. He was no different than norman, in that respect. However, he would attack Roy, which is never smart since he owns the blog.
The irony is that he actually supported Roy’s views in principle. He could be somewhat overbearing presenting them with long rants and many of them in sequence at times.
I may be guilty of the same thing at times but I am mindful that I am a guest here and I try to be respectful of Roy’s views even though I am diametrically opposed to some of them on the GHE and heat transfer. I would say, in general, that I am over 90% in agreement with Roy on climate science.
Furthermore, I try to steer away from straight opinion and focus on the work of recognized scientists. I am trying to understand what they were saying and how they arrived at their conclusions. I am finding that many scientists today have fallen into the trap of accepting paradigms without understanding the basis of the paradigms.
With regard to institutions like NOAA, I think they have strayed away from mainstream science into some form of virtual science.
So many times, I see modern scientists confusing heat with EM. That is not just my opinion, the definitions of each form of energy are almost diametrically opposed.
barry… try #2…”A different baseline merely changes where the zero line sits. UAH zero line is higher than the surface data sets, and thats entirely the reason why UAH have negative anomalies in more recent times than surface data sets”.
Your somewhat confused Barry re the application of statistics.
If you have a shorter time series and you base the baseline in nearly the entire range it would appear to a thinking man that a longer time series should have an equally long baseline.
That’s not the case. The UAH baseline from 1979 till present features a baseline from 1980 – 2010. The Had-crut surface record features temperatures from 1850 – 2017 using a baseline from 1961 – 1990.
So, tell me Barry, what does it do to a time series when you use such a short baseline with half of it in a known period of cooling? I’d say it shows inordinate and fake warming.
Did you not read the Climategate emails in which Phil Jones of Had-crut admitted to using Mike’s trick to hide declining temperatures? Or the emails in which he tried to thwart an FOI request from Steve McIntyre to the UK government to have Jones release his data. Why do you suppose Phil did not want his data examined by an expert?
The Had-crut cheaters are showing a positive trend from 1990 till present with current temps at least double that of UAH. Also, UAH does not show the fake positive trend from 1990 till now.
jesus H christ, your understanding of basic number work is appalling.
D,
is that just another irrelevant and therefore stupid comment, or did you have something to say?
Cheers.
D,
Do you really think pointless crudity makes you appear intelligent?
Are you that stupid?
Cheers.
Hahaha – clearly a self-referential comment.
D,
A stupid person would say that, wouldnt they?
Particularly if they couldnt come up with anything better. Of course, stupid people think everything they say is smart. This is what makes them stupid.
Cheers.
des…”your understanding of basic number work is appalling…”
One think I have noted from participating in blogs over the years is that those who revert to ad homs in lieu of a scientific rebuttal do so because they have no idea what they are talking about.
I have stated before that I have no interest in basic number work (number crunching). Any idiot can learn to do that. The trick is to understand what the numbers mean, that is, from which context were they taken.
Based on the arguments of you and Barry re trend lines, neither of you have ventured far away from your calculators or your Excel graphs. Neither of you have been able to explain how a 0.12C/decade trend can exist in the same range where a positive trend representing recovery from cooling, followed by a flat trend for 15 years co-exists.
Neither of you can explain that conundrum so you revert to the world of ad homs. I have enough in-depth training in statistics to get it that neither of you have more than a superficial understanding of the field. Both of you can talk a good talk about regressions and other jargon but neither of you really understands what is going on.
When we studied probability and statistics as part of our engineering program, we were taught the theory as an adjunct to applied science. In other words, we had to APPLY it. The profs were mindful of that and made sure we understand how to apply statistics theory without leaping to stupid conclusions about averages. We were taught that statistics is a tool and that numbers in themselves mean nothing out of context.
Neither of you have been able to explain how a 0.12C/decade trend can exist in the same range where a positive trend representing recovery from cooling, followed by a flat trend for 15 years co-exists.
That’s been explained many times here and elsewhere. You’ve chosen not to see it.
For short time periods, if the data is highly variable, you can get all sorts of trends of different slopes with careful selection of start and end points. This only means that the variability of the data is having a stronger influence on the result than any long-term signal.
If I pick 2008 as a start date, the trend to present is hugely positive. If I pick the peak of the last el Nino as a start date, the trend is hugely negative.
Are these meaningful trends? No. They are largely the result of variability strongly influencing the result. Are there ways of testing whether a trend is statistically significant? Yes. These periods fail those tests. So does the period 1998 – 2012/2015.
That’s the explanation. And it concurs with your view – you need more context to figure out if trends are meaningful.
To put it simply, there is a relationship between the amount of variability in the data and the amount of time it takes for a signal (if any) to emerge. A very important piece of the context puzzle is figuring out how long a time period needs to be to make the variability close to inconsequential to the analysis. 30 years tends to be the standard for climate.
There’s no confusion here, Gordon, except what you wrote.
The reason UAH has negative anomalies more recently than the surface series is purely that the baseline for UAH is higher than the surface data.
That’s it. That was the correct response to what was said about negative anomalies and where they appear in the different data sets. Everything else you said is spurious.
It is refreshing to visit this blog and find no comments from the persistent troll “David Appell” (one of Lenin’s “Useful Idiots”) .
David has his own blog called “Quark Soup” but he has managed to alienate almost everyone. My guess is that the failure of his blog left him with nothing better to do than annoy Roy Spencer and his multitude of supporters.
Did you find your missing 150 W/m2 yet?
DA,
Who would be stupid enough to think that W/m2 have any relationship to temperature per se?
More stupid and irrelevant nonsense. Carry on, David. Keep being stupid. It suits you.
Cheers.
Mike, you are right. David Appell is an idiot. He is exhibit ‘A’ for why PHD’s don’t have the prestige they used to have.
G,
Maybe David’s PHD stands for Piled Higher and Deeper. Mind you, he managed to complete 15 hours of a journalism course. Thats pretty good going for a stupid person, although many journalists manage to complete journalism courses, and remain stupid, it seems.
Cheers.
Have you figured out the percentage of additional CO2 to the atmosphere yet? You’ve been blocked on Dr. Berry’s website and rightfully so. You added nothing but insults yet you have the temerity to call someone else out for doing what YOU do. How ironic and hypocritical. Your PHD is meaningless because it must have been obtained from the back of a matchbook. So stay here and troll, loser.
Can you explain Ed Berry’s big boner in basic arithmetic — that atmospheric CO2 has increased “30%” since before the industrial era, not the actual amount, 45%?
Or are you also incapable of doing arithmetic?
DA,
Can you explain why you are so stupid as to think posting irrelevant and pointless comments makes you appear knowledgeable? Do you think anybody except another stupid person really cares?
Cheers.
DA…”Can you explain Ed Berrys big boner in basic arithmetic that atmospheric CO2 has increased 30% since before the industrial era, not the actual amount, 45%? ”
Both are doubtful. We saw the problem with tree ring proxies on the hockey stick when the proxies began showing cooling in the 1960s while temperatures were beginning to warm.
Jaworowski has offered detailed explanations as to why ice cores are unreliable as a measure of historical CO2 densities. In Antarctic ice cores there was a wide variance in CO2 concentrations in the ice over a small area. Of course, the IPCC cherry picked the value they needed to establish their pseudo-science.
Appell, his calculation is correct and you just don’t get it. If you assume that the rise in CO2 from 1750’s 280 mark is all due to human production and today’s total is 410 then the human contribution is 30% of the total. Looking at it as a 45% increase is wrong. But that is YOU, WRONG.
You are just an ass and it shows. BTW, you never did show Dr. Berry’s model as being wrong and when it gets published and blows your bullshit out of the water, I hope you are man enough to admit you were wrong about AGW.
g*e*r*a*n, can you help out here please.
What do you get if you increase 280 by 45%?
George, Ed Berry altered his post after I pointed out his error — and, tellingly, didn’t note the error or the correction.
My blog post contains a screen shot from Ed’s original:
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2018/02/idiocy-from-ed-berry-phd.html
“Since 1750,” the increase is 45%, not 30%.
Gordon, There are many proxies for Holocene CO2, not just Ice cores. For example
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1191/095968399677717287
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2562417/
DA,
You are stupid if you believe that you can predict the future by examining the past.
You are that stupid, aren’t you?
Cheers.
Of course you can predict the future by examining the past.
S,
I know you are just pretending to be more stupid than you actually are.
Therefore you are not entitled to bonus stupidity points.
Cheers.
Throw a ball in the air a hundred times.
Will it help you predict the 101st?
I saw that the sun came up a few thousand mornings in a row. I bet it will tomorrow too. But maybe I’m just stupid.
What temperature was in Berlin in the morning?
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00960/17rh04x8eip1.png
About -7 C at 8h.
Will this year’s snowfall in the Northern Hemisphere (except Greenland) cause an increase in the Earth’s albedo?
https://www.ccin.ca/home/sites/default/files/snow/snow_tracker/nh_swe.png
Please, see the temperature drop (red line) in Svalbard from February 28.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00960/d4enje4djkmo.png
I noticed some deep temp drops at many spots across Europe, and elsewhere. The games afoot, imo.
For those who seem to still not understand what a baseline really is.
Here is a chart with Had.CRUT4.6 for the period 1850-2017, with the data plotted according to three different baselines:
– (a) 1871 – 2017
– (b) 1961 – 1990
– (c) 1981 – 2010
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1520072597869.jpg
As everybody can see
– (1) changing the baseline does not modify the data, as is shown by the running means computed by Excel; it is no more than a shift;
– (2) the difference between (a) and (b) is far smaller than that between (b) and (c).
I have shown (1) here recently using UAH with two different baselines:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1520073573982.jpg
(2) is simply due to the fact that the monthly averages for 1981-2010 are way higher than the others: it was a bit warmer during the satellite era than during previous decades.
By the way, the decision to take this or that period for baselining is not a private choice: it is the result of following WHO guidelines at a given time.
The Japanese JMA for example uses 1971-2000 for its internal gridded data sets, but has switched over to 1981-2010 for external representations of that data.
Do no longer use UAH postfixed with the actual revision number! The comment is refused.
La P,
Does the fact that the Australian BOM declared all official temperatures prior to 1910 unreliable affect your view?
Given that the IPCC has stated that prediction of future climate states is not possible, what do you think the point of analysing past temperatures is?
Have you any theory of the action of CO2 on the atmosphere which would result in the Earths surface demonstrably cooling since its creation? If so, where may the theory be found?
Maybe you are just commenting for no good reason at all, so I would be interested in your reasoning if you felt that the above simple questions were irrelevant.
Cheers.
La Pangolina
Thanks for the lesson!
‘Glad to help’ (® g*e*r*a*n)
Snape,
Dumb and dumber? Stupid and stupid mutually admiring each other?
Cheers.
binny…”As everybody can see
(1) changing the baseline does not modify the data, as is shown by the running means computed by Excel; it is no more than a shift;”
This is basically why I call you an idiot. Are you trying to tell me you can take temperatures between 1860 and 2017 using a baseline from 1961 – 1990, then change the baseline from 1980 – 2010 and have no difference?
Tell me something, when you changed from the 1961 – 1990 baseline to the 1980 – 2010 baseline, did you go back and apply the 1980 – 2010 average to the entire series? Or did you allow Excel to do that for you then blindly accept the outcome?
A smart scientist would smell a rat and go looking for it.
It has warmed nearly 1C since 1860. Does Excel know that, did anyone try to program that into the app? No, of course not, it was number crunched without the least thought given to the various contexts along the way.
I mean, what does one baseline have to do with the other? Nothing!!! Apples and oranges.
A baseline is the average temperature over those years. When you are dealing with fractions of a degree, things can look might similar.
It SHOULD be taken from around 1900 – 2010 but that does not suit climate alarmists. They began in 1961, a period of relative cooling, so the rest of the data would appear warmer than it is.
Furthermore, the method of data acquisition between surface stations and satellites is very different, as is the coverage of the planet.
The average warming from 1980 – 2010 SHOULD not apply to the surface record from 1860 – 2017. If it does it’s because the time series has been so incredibly fudged as to make it fit.
The Had-crut time series shows a near 30 degree slope of warming since 1990, which is unmitigated BS. The surface time series had been adjusted out of proportion and for no apparent reason.
There were no proper world records kept till fairly recently. No one was gathering temperature data globally in the late 1800s and early 1900s.
binny…”For those who seem to still not understand what a baseline really is”.
From the same source who claimed NOAA cutting over 75% of surface stations from the global record made no difference. Why don’t we just discard the thermometers and satellite telemetry and start calculating it all statistically?
In fact, I saw a TV show about that the other night. Weather forecasters are starting to do that and offering forecasts with a 70% confidence level. At least the guy admitted they had a long way to go and that they made no offering of complete accuracy.
If you have seen weather situations umpteen times, especially different conditions involving temperature and pressure, you can likely offer a decent guess on how that will pan out when seen again.
They showed a graphic of the jet stream as it occurred, along with the guesses at it before hand. The guesses proved remarkably accurate even though out by several hundred miles.
That’s not the same as what you are trying to do. They are using vast amounts of experience garnered over decades of learning their trade. You are plugging numbers mindlessly into Excel and fluking results without having the slightest idea how they occurred.
That’s how Mann et al messed up with MBB98 (hockey stick). They produced a statistical algorithm for proxy data they thought was accurate. Turns out the algorithm could have produced a hockey stick shape from white noise data.
That’s what happens when a geologist takes on climate science.
Robertson
You give us all here the definitive proof that even though having got so many hints, so many explanations, you still don’t understand what are baselines and anomalies, and how these are constructed out of absolute time series’ data.
*
You should go away for a while out of this web site, and start learning all these basics you do not know anything about.
You could start like did my J.-P. alias Bindidon (actually staying far away from home) with processing the absolute GHCN V3 data, comparing unadjusted and adjusted time series, and then implement a baseline processing.
You could continue with processing UAH’s gridded data, integrate UAH and GHCN objects and methods, and construct a UAH time series out of the grid cells above a subset of the GHCN stations.
But my little finger tells me, Robertson, that you won’t do that.
Because your fun isn’t to learn and contribute. Your fun is to discredit, to pull people in the dirt.
*
By the way: I’m ten times more a woman than you are a man.
No one of the men I met during my life would ever have behaved so primitive like you do, and kept so unteachable as you still are.
*
Feel free to call me an idiot: nobody here will be fooled by your ridiculous behavior.
Rose J. Koelm
La P,
Keep handing out the stupid advice. Why would anybody take much notice of a stupid person – except to avoid taking their unsolicited advice?
All your furious playing with figures still remains irrelevant and pointless, except to demonstrate your lack of knowledge relating to fluid dynamics (is that sciencey enough for you?).
Not one of the men you have met in your life has any relevance to how stupid you might be.
You might have far to climb to attain the status of idiot – I wouldnt know.
Keep playing with the numbers if it keeps you amused. It might make you eleven times the woman – who knows?
Cheers.
If there is no global warming, how do you explain the melting of permafrost, methane release and massive snow mountain melt in Alaska, Russia and elsewhere?
CAO,,Permafrost melts because it IS warmer than it was when it froze. The rate of change of temperature is not relevant. The temperature could be now declining and still be warmer than it was.
If by global warming you mean that the temperature is warmer than it was some time in the past, I dont know of any who disagree. However, if by global warming you mean that CO2 increase is causing the temperature of the planet to significantly increase, there is compelling evidence that is wrong.
The most important factor currently countering temperature decline has been the sustained rise (trend) in water vapor. According to NASA/RSS satellite measurements, WV has been increasing 1.5% per decade for at least as long as it has been measured (since Jan 1988). Rational extrapolation indicates 8% since 1960. Both WV and UAH temperature are now below their trend lines.
Glaciers were retreating well before Henry Ford invented the assembly line to build cars in 1913. This newspaper article from 1910 describes how glaciers from South America to Greenland were in retreat.
From the Braidwood Dispatch and Mining Journal, Sept. 28, 1910:
“Except over a small area, it is gen-
erally understood, the glaciers of the
world are retreating to the moun-
tains. The glacier on Mount Ser-
miento in South America, which des-
cended to the sea when Darwin
found it in 1836, is now separated
from the shore by a vigorous growth
of timber. The Jacobshaven glac-
ier in Greenland has retreated four
miles since 1850, and the East glac-
ier in Spitzbergen is more than a
mile away from its original terminal
moraine. In Scandinavia the snow-
line is further up the mountains,
and the glaciers have withdrawn
3,000ft. from the lowlands in a cen-
tury. The Araphoe glacier in the
Rocky Mountains, with characteris-
tic American enterprise, has been
melting at a rapid rate for several
years. In the Eastern Alps and one
or two other small districts the glac-
iers are growing. In view of these
facts we should not be too sceptical
when old men assure us that winters
nowadays are not to be compared
with the winters of their boyhood.
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/100784966
Meanwhile, in 1978 the New York Times headline read, “International Team of Specialists Finds No End in Sight to 30‐Year Cooling Trend in Northern Hemisphere”
https://www.nytimes.com/1978/01/05/archives/international-team-of-specialists-finds-no-end-in-sight-to-30year.html?_r=1
So, a century ago some glaciers had declined by as much as four miles in 60 years. Atmospheric CO2 levels were about 285-300 ppm. But by 1978, after CO2 levels had increased by 10% or so, climate experts said the northern hemisphere had been in a 30 year cooling trend with “no end in sight”.
Scott
Here is a look at the mass balance of several glaciers in Washington State. The gain during the 70’s is evident, and was part of a multi-decadel cycle of advance/retreat.
Also evident is the longer term trend.
http://pnwclimateconference.org/2014presentations/Riedel.pdf
Snape,
Anyone who blindly assumes that trends continue unabated for ever is just stupid.
The presentation you link to is equally nonsensical. You might just as well cast runes, or examine chicken entrails.
Carry on predicting. Even stupid predictions come true sometimes.
Cheers.
Worldwide glaciers since 1945:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/styles/large/public/2016-07/glaciers-figure1-2016.png
Here is a chart showing plots for Had-CRUT4.6 and UAH-6.0:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1520101810294.jpg
In white you see the difference between Had-CRUT and UAH. For 251 of the 466 months considered, Had-CRUT has shown an anomaly higher than UAH.
Most differences are due to the presence of an ENSO signal.
For El Ninos, UAH’s anomalies mostly are higher; for La Ninas, it is the inverse.
Since I read comments on climate web sites, I saw that most people ignore, forget or dissimulate the fact that anomalies from different sources first have to be adjusted to a common baseline in order to obtain a meaningful comparison.
binny…”https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/~timo/diag/tempts_decadesmooth_global.png”
Here’s the real Had-crut time series:
https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/~timo/diag/tempts_decadesmooth_global.png
Here’s the real UAH time series:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_February_2018_v6.jpg
Don’t see the least bit of similarity. Had-crut shows a marked positive trend from pre 1990 onward with the exception of the prominent hiatus from 1998 – past 2010. UAH shows no positive from 1998 till 2015.
You need to put away your Excel graphs and delusions.
ps. the Had-crut data is fudged. Phil Jones admitted as much in the Climategate emails and in email exchanges with Steve McIntyre, who wanted the data for an independent audit.
Gordon
OMG. I made the mistake of reading another one of your posts.
“Dont see the least bit of similarity”
Are you seriously wondering why the Had-crut data in Bin’s graph looks relatively flat, and matches well with UAH, while the “real” Had-crut appears to have a much steeper trend?
Snape,
You must be stupid. How could you accidentally read a post – and then take the time to try for a spot of gratuitous offense, accidentally?
Irrelevant and pointless comment. Putting OMG up front just shows stupidity. Were you trying to indicate astonishment? Stupid people often express astonishment to disguise the fact that they don’t understand, and are too stupid to ask for help.
Are you one of these, or did you have some rational reason for writing OMG? Maybe you were trying for humour?
Stupid, if you were. It didnt work.
Cheers.
snape…”Are you seriously wondering why the Had-crut data in Bins graph looks relatively flat, and matches well with UAH, while the real Had-crut appears to have a much steeper trend?”
I posted both graphs because the doctored graphs in binny’s post looked nothing like either. Of course, as an alarmist butt-kisser you’d side with the doctored version.
Gordon
A child in junior high just learning about graphs could spot your mistake.
Binny’s graph shows 39 years along the x axis. Your Had-crut graph shows 168 years…..squeezed into the same space.
Why would you expect the slope of the two trend lines to be the same?
Get a piece of gridded paper. Make a temperature graph where each square along the x axis equals one year. Pretend temperature increased 5 degrees in 30 years and draw the diagonal trend line. Got it?
Ok, now make an identical graph except each square on the x axis equals 3 years.
Do the two trend lines look the same?
Snape,
Take a piece of paper. Take a handful of brightly coloured crayons. Make a colourful graph. Wave it around proudly.
What good has it done you? Maybe you think it shows how scientific you are. You are wrong.
It demonstrates stupid writ large.
Cheers.
La P,
Another stupid attempt to convince yourself that historical records have other than curiosity value?
What is the point? A 12 year old child could produce such a chart, and only a stupid person would be impressed.
Are you really stupid enough to believe that you or anybody else can predict future climate states?
Cheers.
Poor Robertson, who isn’t even able
– to understand the optical difference between charts for two completely differing periods like 1850-2017 and 1979-2017,
and
– to discover data sources by himself, let alone to simply download and enter them into a couple of Excel tables…
The Excel chart corresponding to your plot
https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/~timo/diag/tempts_decadesmooth_global.png
looks like this:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1520129537881.jpg
Did you get it now, Robertson?
*
Here is the original data Bindidon and I use for simple comparisons, Robertson genius.
1. The Had-CRUT4.6 global dataset:
https://tinyurl.com/ycxz3kfb
2. The UAH 6.0 dataset with the 27 zones and regions:
https://tinyurl.com/y997zl7w
Don’t forget, Robertson genius, to shift the Had-CRUT anomalies from 1961-1990 to 1981-2010, it is about 0.29 C :-))
Yes Robertson genius! All data is fudged, with the exception of UAH 6.0.
You are a specialist in exactly one domain: to discredit other people’s work. That’s all you are able to do.
Rose J. Koelm
La P,
And still the stupid continues.
Optical difference? Makes no difference to the future whatsoever. You are stupid if you believe so.
Who cares about your obsessive and mindless divinations? Only the stupid, thats who!
Try physics. Predicting the future from the past just doesnt work. Thats why its stupid.
Cheers
binny…”Poor Robertson, who isnt even able
to understand the optical difference between charts for two completely differing periods like 1850-2017 and 1979-2017,
and”
Why don’t you just post the originals without your amateurish doctoring of the graphs in Excel?
binny…”Yes Robertson genius! All data is fudged, with the exception of UAH 6.0″.
Correct!!! Now you’re beginning to understand.
ps. I might add that John and Roy of UAH are the only two scientists with integrity who produce temperature data sets.
How do you judge that?
I expect that the current decrease in solar wind activity will cause further blocking of circulation over the North Atlantic (negative AO).
Albedo slight increase /cooler oceanic temperatures tied to very low solar will bring about global cooling.
This year it starts.
SLIGHTLY HIGHER ALBEDO
Due to an increase in major volcanic activity , greater cloud /snow coverage, greater meridional atmospheric circulation.
Tied to very low solar conditions.
It can easily take place and when it does so goes the global temperatures.
Goodbye to AGW.
Less UV light will cause oceans to cool.
This is happening.
Please explain this:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1520107220414.jpg
You can use HadISST or JMA-COBE SST2 for the comparison; the difference is very small.
The same result you will obtain when comparing (within 1979-2017) the Sun Spot Numbers and UAH ocean anomalies.
The trend difference between NOAA SST and UAH ocean is small as well (0.12 °C / decade vs. 0.11).
La Pangolina
Ouch!! That is not helpful to Salvatore’s theory.
snape…”Ouch!! That is not helpful to Salvatores theory”.
All this fuss about a graph with no source and likely produced by binny???
Snape,
What is the theory to which you refer? Are you sure you are not just making a stupid comment in a pathetic attempt to offer gratuitous offense?
Cheers.
Snape says:
March 3, 2018 at 3:23 PM
Ouch!! That is not helpful to Salvatores theory.
*
Not quite indeed.
A commenter with name ‘Bob Weber’ recently applied some critique to Roy Spencer’s newest temperature model by pretending that solely solar activity is responsible for ENSO activities.
Roy Spencer asked him for data confirming his claim, but he didn’t provide for it (nor did he present any link to peer-reviewed papers he mentioned himself).
*
Thus I downloaded MEI (1950-2017 and 1871-2005)
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei.ext/table.ext.html
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/table.html
and the Belgian SILSO Sun Spot Number data:
https://tinyurl.com/yc8zhpvg
Their comparison for 1871-2017 looks like this
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1520131895479.jpg
where neither the monthly data nor the running means give a trustworthy match.
Maybe Mr Weber gives us data showing a better, more convincing correlation.
P.S. Since SSN and MEI have very different data ranges (0 till over 400 for SSN, and -3 till +3 for MEI) the time series were shifted by their lowest anomalies and scaled to percentiles of their respective highest ones, allowing for a fair comparison.
Rose J. Koelm
La P,
More meaningless, irrelevant and stupid comments. What is the relation of any of this stupidity to the future?
You dont believe the IPCC stating that future climate states are not predictable, obviously – you claim to have the stupid of ten, so physics is meaningless to you.
If a tree fell on a pangolin, would anyone care?
Keep playing with your data. Dont be surprised if nobody seems to care much.
Cheers.
La Pangolina
Bob Weber’s theory was a head scratcher. I wonder if he will see your graph?
Snape,
Did Bob Weber have a theory? If so, that would be one up on stupid people who believe the past predicts the future.
If your theory is any good, your predictions should come to pass. You haven’t even got atheory, but you might well leap to criticise someone who might actually have one.
Who looks to be more stupid?
Cheers.
La P,
Certainly. What is it that you don’t understand? What efforts have you made to understand it yourself?
Or are you just being stupid, and attempting to appear condescending and superior?
Is there any point to your stupid request?
Cheers.
1. The NOAA global ocean dataset:
https://tinyurl.com/y7aktl7p
2. The UAH 6.0 dataset with the 27 zones and regions (here: data column 3):
https://tinyurl.com/y997zl7w
Rose J. Koelm
La P,
Maybe posting stupidity repetitively will convince someone that you are smart.
Only stupid people. The data is meaningless. It represents the past, not the future. Tea leaf reading is more accurate.
Cheers.
Also have the weakening geo magnetic field which compounds given solar effects.
Salvatore
I was just reading about Pacific NW glaciers and the article included several graphs of long term solar cycles. I think you would find it interesting:
Here is the same link I showed Scott, just upthread:
http://pnwclimateconference.org/2014presentations/Riedel.pdf
Scroll to the chart at the very bottom. Looks like long term we are moving towards the next ice age.
In 38,000 years, global warming permitting.
E,
I’ll see your 38,000 and lower you 30,000. Or more, if you like. It’s all rather stupid and irrelevant, isn’t it? Unless you are stupid enough to claim that you can see into the future.
Stupid, just stupid.
Cheers.
Entropic Man
I was trying to help out Salvatore. Given the appropriate time frame, his prediction of global cooling might be correct.
Snape,
Your comment is just stupid. You werent trying to help anybody, were you? Making wild predictions about the future based on intense examination of the past is both pointless and irrelevant.
Stupid, even.
Cheers.
Snape
Salvatore has been predicting imminent cooling for most of a decade now,
38,000 years is only imminent if you are a geologist.
Snape,
Are you really stupid enough to to believe that the future can be predicted from historical weather observations?
Anybody who gives credence to such nonsense, backed up by a colourful presentation containing such absurdities as *tree ring based mass balance* (oh so sciency), repeated at least three times, is certainly no mental giant.
Did you actually read the presentation, or are you one of those stupid people who can’t be bothered looking past the bright colours and impressive photographs?
Cheers.
Mike
Still grouchy, I see. Try going outside and getting some fresh air. Maybe a long walk or bike ride. Does wonders for me.
Snape,
You don’t see anything thats true, obviously. Is it because you are too stupid to see the difference between reality and your imagination?
Go for your long walk or bike ride. It may do wonders for you, but it wont make you any smarter. You will remain stupid, although exercise might enable you to keep being stupid for a longer period.
Irrelevant and pointless. Have you realized that *tree ring based mass balance* is complete nonsense, yet?
Who cares? A chaotic system may change radically and unpredictably without any external influences at all. No *forcings* necessary. Even Gavin Schmidt was forced to acknowledge that fact. He just pretends it doesnt exist. Thats stupidity isnt it?
Cheers.
Time to put poor Mike out of his misery?
N.
No science, so you resort to meaningless, irrelevant and pointless comment?
Looks pretty stupid. Even you arent going to pretend otherwise, are you?
Cheers.
thanks
Today in Berlin a little “warmer”.
http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00960/00pw1iywccf6.png
My heart gets warmer again when looking at this:
https://www.wetteronline.de/wettertrend/berlin?start=8
If no major change occurs during the next two weeks, we will say here the winter 2017/18 was the weakest and shortest one we ever experienced.
But that’s more weather than climate (i.e. ‘averaged weather’, © Prof. Unsinn Flynn)
This is the circulation in the jet streams in the north.
http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00960/xm9jb1o9z6y7.png
La P,
*If no major change occurs . . . * Outstanding! Outstanding stupidity, of course!
If I had a large amount of money, I’d be rich. If my bicycle had three wheels, it would be a tricycle . . . And so on.
You have no clue about the future, do you? Nor do I, if it makes you feel better.
It’s not *more weather than climate* of course. Climate is defined as the average of weather over an arbitrary period. Winter is winter – no more, no less.
It’s just stupid to intimate that weather events are the result of climate change, when climate is just the average of historical weather records. Only really stupid people could believe that climate controls weather.
Are you that stupid? Maybe you could try telling me how wonderful you are, instead of actually thinking.
Cheers.
Mike,
Your new MO is weird. Calling people ‘stupid’ over and over, then wishing them well with ‘cheers’. Your left and right brain battling it out?? It’s very confusing.
Nate,
Only to stupid people, obviously.
Cheers.
Is it some sort of performance art project? Nothing else makes much sense.
Nate,
Facts often don’t make sense to stupid people. Are you one?
Cheers.
The cyclone threatens the islands of Mauritius and Runion.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00960/91vwnr7rbqfn.png
Sorry. Reunion.
Hello / Dzień dobry ren
You probably tried to write 'Réunion', didn't you?
Simply use this pretty tool in future:
https://mothereff.in/html-entities
Dobra niedziela!
RJ
La P,
There might even be a chance that he looked at en.reunion.fr, and noticed quotes like *Reunion Island’s scenery . . . *
Reunion, reunion – obviously you think you know how to communicate with English speakers better than the French Govt.
Or maybe you are just patronising, ignorant, and stupid?
The language of this blog is English. Not German, French, Polish, Swahili or Nepali.
You might be stupid enough to demand that native English speakers adopt the grave, the acute, the umlaut, and so on. Unfortunately for you, English is probably the second most widely spoken language in the world, behind Mandarin, and does not require the use of diacritical marks. Nor does Mandarin.
Your command of English is quite good, but your usage immediately identifies you as a foreigner to the language. Trying to dictate to native English speakers that they should modify their usage to suit you is not only stupid, but also stupid.
What in blue blazes has your comment got to do with climate? Just another stupid attempt to appear superior?
And of course, quite apart from your patronising stupidity, your comment is irrelevant and meaningless, as well as stupid.
Stupid.
Cheers.
Who has the tranquiliser?
n,
Another pointless, irrelevant, yet strangely stupid comment from you, wouldn’t you agree?
Cheers.
Frost is coming back to the Great Lakes.
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00960/i1fja9zxbgsy.png
La Nina does not give up.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
I think I can speak here on behalf of nearly all the people participating in this blog, when I wholeheartedly thank
Prof. Dr. rer. stupid. habil. M. Flynn
for his wise, concise, and enlightening contributions (which are also hard to beat in terms of elegance).
Professor, we are so grateful and proud to have you with us.
For heaven’s sake do never be afraid to show us the right way again and again!
Kind regards
R.J. Koelm
A nice eulogy.
He did seem to suffer a bit at the end.
I am sure he is R.I.P.now.
n,
At least you are not stupid enough to assert you are interested in science.
Well done!
Cheers.
La P,
Thank you for your kind words of encouragement.
However, flattery will get you nowhere.
You have posted yet another pointless, irrelevant, and therefore stupid, comment.
Study physics. Learn about Nature. Stop trying to predict the future by relentlessly examining the past. Then, and only then, may the veil of stupidity cease to cloud the clarity of your thought.
Cheers.
Gordon Robertson says:
March 3, 2018 at 10:17 PM
‚Why don’t you just post the originals without your amateurish doctoring of the graphs in Excel?‘
*
Well, Robertson… I understand myself as 100 % amateur and laywoman. But in comparison with you, I feel quite a bit professional.
Why do I not post the originals? Think, Robertson, think before writing. That might well be an amazing experience for you.
**
Gordon Robertson says:
March 3, 2018 at 10:18 PM
March 3, 2018 at 10:20 PM
Correct!!! Now you’re beginning to understand.
ps. I might add that John and Roy of UAH are the only two scientists with integrity who produce temperature data sets.
*
What I do understand far better than you ever might imagine is that one day after Roy Spencer would have announced any upward correction to his dataset, like he did in 2011
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/07/on-the-divergence-between-the-uah-and-rss-global-temperature-records/
you very probably would in turn start to doubt about his integrity, just like did so many commenters at that time.
For me, Roy Spencer’s integrity is not a function of how ‚cold‘ his dataset behaves.
R. J. Koelm
binny…from your link:
“Anyway, my [Roy Spencer] UAH cohort and boss John Christy, who does the detailed matching between satellites, is pretty convinced that the RSS data is undergoing spurious cooling because RSS is still using the old NOAA-15 satellite which has a decaying orbit, to which they are then applying a diurnal cycle drift correction based upon a climate model, which does not quite match reality. We have not used NOAA-15 for trend information in yearswe use the NASA Aqua AMSU, since that satellite carries extra fuel to maintain a precise orbit”.
John Christy, who Roy reveals as his boss, has an actual degree in climate science. John has also sat on several IPCC reviews as a lead author and a reviewer. He pays his own way and expenses when called to testify as a skeptic and I regard his integrity as second to none.
There are not many scientists these days willing to stand up and be counted. Roy and John are two such scientists and they are humanists as well. They understand the implication of the pseudo-science behind AGW and the devastating effect climate alarm could have on the less fortunate in our society.
I don’t know what you are blabbering about in your statement in your recent post about UAH showing cooling, it was RSS showing the cooling. With regard to RSS, my understanding is that they were formed to prove UAH wrong and were unable to do so. Therefore you have two approaches to satellite data that have essentially agreed the past 38 years.
On a few occasions one has helped correct the other. Circa 2005, RSS pointed out a very minor discrepancy in a UAH orbital sensor and both parties worked together to correct it. While doing so, a similar error was detected in the RSS data. They were both minor errors that in no way impacted the overall accuracy, even though many alarmists jumped on the bandwagon trying to discredit UAH.
If you are implying Roy lacks integrity based on what you revealed above then I think you have a comprehension problem. Or maybe you are far too biased to take in what was being said.
GR wrote:
“With regard to RSS, my understanding is that they were formed to prove UAH wrong and were unable to do so.”
UAH is, among six global datasets, again the outlier.
DA,
Who cares? Are you stupid, or just pretending?
Cheers.
With regard to RSS, my understanding is that they were formed to prove UAH wrong and were unable to do so
Where does this understanding of why RSS was formed come from?your imagination?
RSS did ‘prove’ UAH wrong shortly after they commenced, resulting in UAH changing their analysis, and the resulting UAH data showing a warming trend where there had been virtually none.
It seems that your version of science views criticism as a bad thing.
How the alarmists do science:
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/mar/1/kill-climate-deniers-play-launches-theatrical-run/
jimc…”How the alarmists do science:”
The irony is that the idiots putting out this Goebbel’s-type propaganda don’t understand that skeptics do not deny climate. They are so abysmally ignorant they essentially have no idea what they are talking about.
This is an extremist religious movement that behaves like any other authoritarian extremist group. They are driven by a hysteria which is based on a cause which makes sense to them but to no one else.
The extremists used to burn women as witches based on similar mantras. The poor souls were seen as advocates for Satan, and that mentality is not much different than the current climate alarmist POV.
jimc: do you truly not know the difference between the theatre and science?
Come on…..
David, your remarkably strained misinterpretation demonstrates your remarkably phony superiority.
Jimc: You should spend less time reading the Drudge Report — it is conservative propaganda, and has no aspirations to the truth.
“I don’t think anyone is going to take this play literally”
Lee Lewis, artistic director of Griffin Theatre Company.
https://tinyurl.com/y7mqqdru
binny…”1. The NOAA global ocean dataset:
https://tinyurl.com/y7aktl7p
2. The UAH 6.0 dataset with the 27 zones and regions (here: data column 3):
https://tinyurl.com/y997zl7w
Rose J. Koelm”
**********
What’s your point???….that you can plug these numbers into an Excel program and come up with a better graph than those produced by NOAA and UAH? All you are doing is offering us a biased, inaccurate, and layman interpretation.
Any idiotic alarmist can use woodfortrees or Excel to manipulate the data to show any kind of trend he/she desires. Simply changing parameters in woodfortrees or Excel can change a flat or negative trend to a positive trend, using the same data.
That’s what you did with one of your graph comparisons where you distorted the UAH graph to give it a positive trend where it had none.
NOAA does it all the time in a model to produce warming where there is none, and they brag about it. That’s why I call them cheaters and fudgers. They have no interest in doing science, their goal is political, to support the pseudo-science of AGW.
The same applies to NASA GISS. I think NASA has integrity in general but they have allowed their climate division to be run by out and out climate alarmists like James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt. When a NASA director tried to get rid of Hansen for his blatant political innuendo, he was overruled from higher up in the US government. My bets are on Al Gore as the higher up.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Any idiotic alarmist can use woodfortrees or Excel to manipulate the data to show any kind of trend he/she desires”
Translation: Gordon doesn’t know how to calculate trends, or interpret trends, and has no interest in learning.
DA,
And if you look up a definition of stupid in a dictionary, you might well see a picture of yourself.
Stupid, just stupid. What are you hoping to gain? Have you no understanding of science?
Cheers.
DA…thought you had left in disgust after having your butt kicked by skeptics. Back for more??? A true masochist.
GR,
And stupid to boot, by the look of it.
Cheers.
Gordon, there are no skeptics here, Just deniers who cant rise above juvenile insults and taunting. Thats the whole problem. Itd be great if there were some skeptics here. Alas.
Relation between geomagnetic field and climate variability. Part 2: Probable mechanism
N. Kilifarska, V. Bakhmutov, G. Melnik
Abstract
In this study we show that correspondence of the main structures of geomagnetic field, near surface air temperature and surface pressure in the mid-latitudes, reported previously in the 1st part of the paper, has its physical foundation. The similar pattern, found in latitude-longitude distribution of the lower stratospheric ozone and specific humidity, allows us to close the chain of causal links, and to offer a mechanism through which geomagnetic field could influence on the Earth’s climate. It starts with a geomagnetic modulation of galactic cosmic rays (GCR) and ozone production in the lower stratosphere through ion-molecular reactions initiated by GCR. The alteration of the near tropopause temperature (by O3 variations at these levels) changes the amount of water vapour in the driest part of the upper troposphere/lower stratosphere (UTLS), influencing in such a way on the radiation balance of the planet. This forcing on the climatic parameters is non-uniformly distributed over the globe, due to the heterogeneous geomagnetic field controlling energetic particles entering the Earth’s atmosphere.
ren…”In this study we show that correspondence of the main structures of geomagnetic field….”
You might be interested in reading material written by Syun Akasofu, an astronomer who pioneered studies in the solar wind.
An example:
http://www.springer.com/gp/book/9789027724724#
In one of his books he describes how the low energy plasma interacts with the magnetosphere to induce electrical voltages and currents in the Earth’s atmosphere, oceans, and solid surface.
The voltages can be several hundred thousand volts and I imagine the currents can be strong. They have to have some kind of effect on the climate.
“They have to have some kind of effect on the climate.”
Such as?
DA,
I’d ask if you understood either classical mechanics or quantum mechanics which provide the answer, but you are obviously too stupid or lazy to try.
Stupid gotcha, posed by a stupid person. No good faith in evidence.
Just stupidity.
Cheers.
DA…”They have to have some kind of effect on the climate.
Such as?”
You wouldn’t understand if I explained. You’d just keep calling for peer reviews, more links, and other general trolling mannerisms.
I posed the question to ren because he’s way ahead of you and your fellow alarmists.
Gordon Robertson
“Note that sectors with highest O3 density correspond to the colder winter time regions in the NorthernHemisphere.”
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281441974_Geomagnetic_Field_and_Climate_Causal_Relations_with_Some_Atmospheric_Variables
Gordon Robertson says:
DAThey have to have some kind of effect on the climate.
“You wouldnt understand if I explained.”
Go ahead and explain it, if you can.
binny….”You are a specialist in exactly one domain: to discredit other peoples work. Thats all you are able to do.
Rose J. Koelm”
************
And I suppose that you taking UAH data and producing your own graphical version of the data is not discrediting the work of the original author. You are claiming in effect that Roy cannot interpret his own data, as he has on the graph on his site, that he needs you to provide an amateur version of the data when a link to it would suffice.
That’s a form of plagiarism. When you take someone else’s data, run it through your own algorithm, then produce comparisons between it and another series, showing them to be similar, then you are not only plagiarizing, you are lying.
Surely you don’t expect me, as a skeptic, to sit back while you offer such alarmist propaganda, or when you defend NOAA when they freely admit to throwing out valid data and recreating it in a climate model so it is distorted to show warming?
Yes, I am out to discredit pesudo-science. If you were honest and wanted to compare UAH 6 to Had-crut as you did, you’d overlay the exact graphs from each data set provider, as is, so people could see the real difference. Instead, you have fudged the data in an algorithm to make them appear similar. binny..
snape…”A child in junior high just learning about graphs could spot your mistake.
Binnys graph shows 39 years along the x axis. Your Had-crut graph shows 168 years..squeezed into the same space.
Why would you expect the slope of the two trend lines to be the same?”
*********
If you did not have an attention deficit disorder as well as an issue with comprehension you MIGHT be able to understand that I was not posting the Had-crut and UAH graphs as a comparison. I was replying to binny, who had used a personal algorithm to plot both series on the same graph then claiming they are similar.
I asked binny why she did not post the originals, then I got them and posted them.
You are using my argument that graphs with two drastically different baselines cannot be compared. Even at that, it is obvious that Had-crut shows a positive trend from pre-1990 till present whereas UAH does not.
That proves to me that Had-crut is absolutely corrupt. Phil Jones, who runs CRU, has admitted in the Climategate emails to hiding declining temperatures using Mann’s trick. He also admitted to Steve McIntyre that he has altered the historical record and ‘lost’ the originals. When asked for his data for an independent verification he refused outright.
Jones claimed further that he and ‘Kevin’ would see to it that a paper from UAH would not reach the IPCC review stage. In my mind, this guy is corrupt and should have been removed immediately. After a 3-series investigation run by people with conflicts of interest that favoured Jones, he was exonerated.
He was not charged with the dishonesty he admitted to and his university, East Anglia, was allowed to submit the questions that could be asked of Jones. Isn’t that convenient? Imagine the situation at Mann’s university, Penn State, where a coach were accused of having sex with kids, had the university been allowed to control which questions could be asked of the coach.
Alarmist scientists stink!!! They are rotten to the core.
The surface record from Had-crut, NOAA, and GISS has been compromised to the point it is no longer valid. It’s a shame these charlatans were put in charge of the data without measures in place to monitor them. No scientist should ever be able to destroy data, in fact, it would be prudent for a scientist altering data to keep a backup just in case.
The fact that Jones destroyed the data he altered proves to me that he has something to hide. He should have been prosecuted.
Dumb dumb says,
“You are using my argument that graphs with two drastically different baselines cannot be compared.”
That was not my argument at all, Gordon. As Bin just showed, changing the baseline can shift the trend line up or down, but does not change It:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1520072597869.jpg
Bin simply presented Had-crut data, 1979 to present on the same graph as UAH data, 1979 to present. The trends are very similar:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1520101810294.jpg
***************************************
Did you perform the exercise I proposed? I’m guessing not. It explains why your Had-crut graph looks so much different than Bin’s.
Get a piece of gridded paper. Make a temperature graph where each square along the x axis equals one year. Pretend temperature increased 5 degrees in 30 years and draw the diagonal trend line.
Ok, now make an identical graph except each square on the x axis equals 3 years. Again, assume 5 degrees warming in 30 years.
What happens to the slope of the trend line?
My grand-daughter can do this.
But I think it may be above GR’s capability at this stage.
p,
I’ve no doubt she can. You no doubt think that this makes her into a scientist. That would just be stupid, wouldn’t it?
On the other hand, I wouldn’t be surprised if she can predict climate changes as well as Schmidt, Mann, or Trenberth (or all of them together).
Does that make her incredibly smart, or them incredibly stupid?
Cheers.
Snape,
How stupid are you?
Can you think of nothing better to do than telling people how to draw pointless graphs?
The records will not change. The past will not change. No matter how brightly coloured, whether you use linear or exponential scaling, whether you read the graph back to front or upside down (as per M Mann), it still won’t assist in predicting the future.
Your stupid reference to, and apparent obsession with, trend lines, is pointless.
Have you tried understanding physics? If you do, your assumptions about the future might appear more soundly based.
Get more brightly coloured crayons. Bigger sheets of shiny paper. Hold a crayon between your toes if you are contemplating a phase space which requires more than two crayons!
Stupid, I know. Graphs do not predict the future, particularly when the data results from observations of a chaotic system. Try science.
Cheers,
snape…”Bin simply presented Had-crut data, 1979 to present on the same graph as UAH data, 1979 to present. The trends are very similar:”
And that puts you firmly in the idiot category with binny. The trends are not even close. UAH has a flat trend from 1998 – 2015 while Had-crut shows a marked overall positive trend from pre 1990 onward.
You, binny, des, barry and other alarmists fail to understand that a straight line trend lacking context is nothing but crunched numbers. All of you have completely ignored the contexts producing the data because you think plugging raw data into an algorithm tells you something.
The UAH data actually consists of four major trend lines. There is a re-warming trend from 1979 – 1997, followed by a flat trend from 1998 – 2015, followed by a short warming trend till 2016 then a cooling trend from early 2016 till now.
If you lump all that under a number crunched trend from 1979 – 2018, you miss all the action produced by various contexts such as aerosol cooling and ENSO activity. Of course none of that matter to you alarmists since you BELIEVE that a trace gas in the atmosphere, making up 0.04% of the atmosphere is responsible for the 0.12C overall trend produced by number crunching.
Roy uses that trend but he’s not stupid like you alarmists. In the UAH 35 year report, UAH covers the reasons for the warming/cooling along the way. He is required by scientific protocol to issue a number-crunched trend but you lot as alleged intelligent beings are required to look deeper, unless you are total alarmist believers lacking any grey matter.
You have already revealed your stupidity with g*r’s Moon problem, revealing a complete inability to understand the difference between a body orbiting on it’s axis and a body turning under the influence of an orbital moment induced by Earth’s gravity.
Now you are raving about comparing apples to oranges about trend lines to support your alarmist nonsense. I wish you’d go back to ignoring my posts, you don’t even begin to understand them.
It’s unlikely, at this point, that GR will ever learn about the statistical significance of trends and how to calculate them.
DA,
Its unlikely at this point, or indeed any other, that you will become any less stupidly fixated on the idea that you can ascertain the future by peering at historical thermometer records.
I won’t bother asking if you have some faintly logical reason for believing such tripe, because I know you haven’t. Carry on David.
Cheers.
DA…”Its unlikely, at this point, that GR will ever learn about the statistical significance of trends and how to calculate them”.
I could do it on my slide rule. y = mx + b.
With the UAH data, I could eyeball a line through the data and come fairly close to the present 0.12C/decade trend. It wouldn’t mean anything since it does not take into account the transition across the baseline near 1997. It would not explain the recovery from cooling pre 1997 and the flat trend from 1998 – 2015.
I am asking you rocket scientists to explain that but you are all stumped. I don’t even think you understand what I’m getting at.
Gordon, it’s like this:
https://tinyurl.com/y7t5os8z
Gordon, the calculation of a linear trend takes into account all the data.
Did you really never learn Newton’s method of least squares? You’ve taken medications whose efficacy has been determined based on it.
The snowstorm is approaching North Dakota.
Yeah gonna be a doozy expecting 30cm plus here just north of ND
phil j…”Yeah gonna be a doozy expecting 30cm plus here just north of ND”
Been there while visiting Red China (aka Regina). Used to watch TV from Bismark, ND as the storms rolled in.
Gordon Robertson says:
March 4, 2018 at 1:07 PM
‘Any idiotic alarmist can use woodfortrees or Excel to manipulate the data to show any kind of trend he/she desires. Simply changing parameters in woodfortrees or Excel can change a flat or negative trend to a positive trend, using the same data.
Thats what you did with one of your graph comparisons where you distorted the UAH graph to give it a positive trend where it had none.’
*
1. Today evening I’m tired and go silently over your paranoia and over your disgusting claims about my pretended dishonesty, leading me to distort any UAH data.
2. My very first question is this, Robertson: if you obtain from me links to original UAH and Had-CRUT data, why do you not download that data, enter it into Excel tables and compare your results with those I presented?
Is it
– because you aren’t able to use Excel or a similar spreadsheet tool?
or
– because you prefer to discredit people showing that data?
3. You are well right: anybody is able to modify the contents of an Excel table after having entered data into it.
4. You are not right: nobody is able to modify WoodForTrees’ data. Paul Clark reads the datasets, and allows you to modify their appearance using offsets, scaling factors etc, not less, not more.
5. Here are two charts, Robertson:
– one from WoodForTrees
https://tinyurl.com/yb6sy225
– one I created and displayed such that it looks as much as possible like Paul Clark’s output
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1520205925912.jpg
Trend estimates in °C per decade for 1998-2012:
– UAH: -0.072 ± 0.031
– Had-CRUT: 0.052 ± 0.021
6. Try – exceptionally – to be honest, Robertson.
(a) Where did I show UAH producing a positive trend where there was none?
(b) Do these two charts represent in your mind the same data
https://tinyurl.com/y997zl7w
or do they not?
7. I don’t feel the need to convince you, Robertson. Simply because even you see I’m right, in two days or two weeks you will repeat your same nonsensical lies.
8. I repeat: you are a coward. Because
– you abuse here the full tolerance of this web site
– you never would write your lies at e.g. WUWT more than once, because you pretty good know that you then soon would get banned there.
La P,
You are fixated on graphs. That’s just stupid.
What relevance do they have to future weather or climate?
As professorP pointed out, his grand daughter can produce graphs. So can you. Brilliant?
You believe you can predict the future from charts. That’s stupid. You can’t.
Cheers.
Hello AlphaGo team!
Your new instance of the Flynn SpencerBlogBot is a bit disappointing.
I found the predecessor with its amazing
Foolish Warmist!
No GHE!
really much better. Could you reinstall that old one?
Thanks in advance.
Rgds
RJK
La P,
Some stupid people demonstrate that their supposed interest in science is a masquerade.
You, for example. You can’t bring yourself to contradict my assertion that you can’t even produce a testable GHE hypothesis, so . . .
Stupid, just stupid.
Use more colours. Use more impressive spreadsheets. Tell more people how womanly you are!
Or use your brain in a less stupid fashion. Learn physics. Learn chaos.
Cheers.
+1
Ooops. That was for La Pangolina of course.
S,
No doubt a Freudian slip. Of course, I accept plaudits from anyone. Even the stupid!
Who wouldn’t?
Cheers.
Oh I forgot a little detail.
Do you see, apart from the fact that Excel’s 13 month running mean is not centered and therefore lags a few months, a real difference between these two charts?
1. http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_February_2018_v6.jpg
2. http://4gp.me/bbtc/1520210188196.jpg
La P,
You also forgot a major detail. You forgot to mention that you cannot come up with any scientific justification at all for your comments.
All trees, but no forest. That seems a stupid way to convince anyone that they should pay any attention (except for the amusement quotient, which is quite high!).
How does CO2 change the climate? Can you quantify your answer, without the use of magic?
Stupid.
Cheers.
La P,
don’t forget that the most common early symptom of Alzheimers is difficulty in remembering recent events (short-term memory loss). Mike thinks that every utterance he makes is new.
n,
Thank you for your stupid attempt at mind reading – it no doubt diverted you from doing something even more stupid, wouldn’t you agree?
Spending your time learning physics might alleviate your stupidity more effectively than time spent attempting to read minds.
Cheers,
Miss or Ms. Binny…”My very first question is this, Robertson: if you obtain from me links to original UAH and Had-CRUT data, why do you not download that data, enter it into Excel tables and compare your results with those I presented?”
I don’t need to, the graph is already displayed on this site for UAH and Roy has done us the favour of drawing in a running average.
The graph was done by a professional. So…you want to verify it…great!!! I have no problem with that, my problem is with you redrawing it and making it appear as if it’s similar to the Had-crut fudging.
I posted both originals and they look nothing like your rendition.
binny…” one I created and displayed such that it looks as much as possible like Paul Clarks output”
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1520205925912.jpg
this looks nothing like your original post here:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1520101810294.jpg
Gordon Robertson says:
March 4, 2018 at 10:56 PM
(1) http://4gp.me/bbtc/1520205925912.jpg
this looks nothing like your original post here:
(2) http://4gp.me/bbtc/1520101810294.jpg
*
One more time, Robertson, you show the amazing level of your incompetence.
It is exactly the same data, with three differences in the representation:
– graph (2) is my original version using Excel’s maximal graph size instead of the small WFT window (which always seems to enhance warmista feeling);
– the running means in graph (1) are the same as that chosen by Roy Spencer, i.e. 12 or 13 months (I have my reasons to prefer running means over 36 months for the satellite era);
– the graph (1) didn’t show the time series itself because of the overhead in a small window; it wasn’t visible in the WFT original, only the means were visible there.
If you had any experience in that domain, you wouldn’t feel any need to howl your paranoid nonsense all the time.
You would show us your own graphs instead, and we would have some benefit of them.
As I explained you: the only job you master perfectly is to discredit the work of others.
binny….” graph (2) is my original version using Excels maximal graph size instead of the small WFT window (which always seems to enhance warmista feeling);”
I am trying to figure out what point you are trying to make. Are you claiming UAH data is wrong and that you can do better using Excel?
Why are you producing these graphs in the first place? Is it an exercise in confirmation, for which I have no problem, or are you trying to discredit UAH? The graph I looked at initially seemed to suggest there is little difference between the UAH graph on Roy’s site and the Had-crut fudgery.
There is a good deal of difference between the two sets of data.
Gordon Robertson says:
March 5, 2018 at 1:31 PM
‘The graph I looked at initially seemed to suggest there is little difference between the UAH graph on Roys site and the Had-crut fudgery.
There is a good deal of difference between the two sets of data.’
*
For the last time… If you still don’t understand (or, more probably, don’t want to understand), then you don’t, no problem for me.
1. I start with the Excel graph
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1520210188196.jpg
wich is (apart from its non centered running mean) exactly similar to
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_February_2018_v6.jpg
2. In that Excel graph, I now modify, for convenience, the UAH plots representation as follows:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1520291711525.jpg
2. I add to that graph two plots of Had-CRUT4.6 and NOAA you consider both to be ‘fudgery’:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1520292219782.jpg
As you can see on the left, each dataset was plotted wrt its own baseline:
– 1981-2010 for UAH;
– 1961-1990 for Had-CRUT;
– 1971-2000 for NOAA (this one is according to the WMO recommendation valid till 17.01.2018, it’s now 1981-2010).
3. But this representation is of course wrong.
If you want to correctly represent anomaly based time series, you must adjust their anomalies to a common level:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1520294117990.jpg
You think it’s incorrect, or even warmist manipulation? Your problem.
4. You asked me: “Why do you use Excel, instead of looking at the original graphs?”
Here is one of many many answers:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1520294336531.jpg
My friend J.-P. and I we like to look at such graphs, to see where plots correlate or don’t etc etc.
You think it’s all rubbish? So what!
For anybody besotted with the idea that textbooks necessarily offer authority, the following quote might show that even eminent authors have to face reality from time to time –
It is amazing that eminent physicists like Landau and Lifschitz have for a while presented turbulence as an almost periodic phenomenon, with invariant tori of dimensions depending on Reynolds number. Only in the 1971 second edition of their famous treatise on fluid mechanics have they realized that almost periodic functions are too nice to describe turbulence.
I might also point out that dependence on textbooks describing the atom as indivisible, or continents as fixed in place, or ascribing heating power to CO2, may lead to being characterised as ignorant, stupid, or both.
Cheers.
Can somebody bring the book trolley over here. Mike is getting bored.
And don’t forget some coloured crayons to practise his graphs.
snake, is that you with another identity?
Or is it just another 12-year-old?
g*r…”snake, is that you with another identity?
Or is it just another 12-year-old?”
*********
Most likely and it would not surprise me if he’s wearing a nurse’s outfit while admiring John Cook dressed as an SS officer.
I’m not as funny as nurseratched. Anyway, I tried being two characters at once (Snape, Artemis Dimwitty) and kept messing it up.
S,
Don’t underrate yourself. You are equally as laughter producing as any other stupid person.
Keep it up.
Cheers.
n,
The stupidity of people pretending to have an interest in science, while demonstrating no such thing, comes as no surprise. They employ any stupid stratagem that takes their fancy. Anything to avoid discussing science. No surprise there, either.
They know no science, apart from the Cargo Cult variety, involving brightly coloured graphics and endless re-analysis of thermometer readings.
As a stupid person, which view do you favour?
Cheers.
nurseratched
Which one is Flynn?
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTYyFkclW8lXtvCotzHwz1-XfUw8-E8innsJ3MwklAPU86JMcvB
Here’s my best guess:
Flynn’s the guy on the left. Gordon’s the one with the beard, and the little guy in the middle is g*
Is Kristian the tall guy in back?
S,
If you think your level of stupidity is lessened by your inability to guess correctly, you are even more stupid than you have demonstrated so far.
Are you one of those stupidly peculiar people who claim they want to discuss science, but then complain about being asked to justify their bizarre ideas?
Cheers.
“If you think your level of stupidity is lessened by your inability to guess correctly…….”
Damn, did I get it wrong?
Snape,
If you are too stupid to work that out, you are unlikely to believe me, aren’t you?
Think about it. How hard can it be? You do something stupid, then try to blame it on me.
That’s just stupid, isn’t it?
Cheers.
Snape, you are correct!
g* has just had his meds – that is why he is not laughing hysterically.
Lol!!
p.s.
the rest of them look unhappy because I reminded them of the consequences of hogging the facilitys blogging machine
They know what treatment we dished out to d*c*
nurseratched
Maybe a fishing trip would cheer them up?
http://i48.tinypic.com/35k31av.jpg
n,
You didn’t dish out any treatment to anybody, of course!
Just more stupid, irrelevant, and pointless nonsense. I understand that talking intelligently about science is beyond you. Is that due to ignorance, stupidity or laziness?
Cheers,
snape- a fishing trip is a great idea!
Especially at this time of year in the North Atlantic.
pp…”snape- a fishing trip is a great idea!
Especially at this time of year in the North Atlantic”
I’m sure you alarmists would excel at fishing. That’s what you do in science, fish for ridiculous answers to a simple problem.
p,
Are you one of those stupid people who keeps whining about a lack of science discussion?
Cheers.
MF
“Are you one of those stupid people who keeps whining about a lack of science discussion?”
Psychology can be a fruitful source of scientific discussion.
p,
Psychology is as scientific as climatology – which is to say, not at all.
Only psychologists, climatologists and stupid people believe otherwise.
Cheers.
Tell me – when did you first start having these thoughts?
p,
You are a perfect example of why real scientists laugh at the pretensions of psychologists, even more than they laugh at climatologists.
How stupid would you have to be to make such an irrelevant and pointless comment? Very. stupid!
For more humour, you could try to divert the conversation into parapsychology, or neuro linguistic programming. Anything but physics, eh?
Stupid piled on a firm foundation of stupid.
Cheers.
Did you share these thoughts with your parents?
p,
You are attempting to scale new heights of irrelevancy, pointlessness, and stupidity.
Next irrelevant, pointless and stupid question?
Cheers.
Let’s try a different tack.
Who do you think is’nt stupid ?
i.e. who do you admire as a scientist.
p,
I have to inform you that your attempt to set a new standard in irrelevancy, pointlessness and stupidity has not succeeded. Obviously, the competition is fierce, and unless you can demonstrate something really outstanding, others have managed the same standard of stupidity, irrelevancy and pointlessness.
There is no limit on the number of times you can attempt to be even more stupid etc., and I wish you luck.
With a bit of extra effort, you might succeed in your endeavour.
Cheers.
Does apparent “stupidity, irrelevancy and pointlessness” really annoy you?
How long has this been an issue ?
p,
Keep trying. Not a very good attempt. No more stupid, irrelevant and pointless than your previous submissions.
Cheers.
You seem reluctant to answer my questions even though you keep responding.
Can you explain this curious behaviour?
What sort of question would you like me to ask you?
p,
That doesn’t even reach your previous standard of stupidity, irrelevance, and pointlessness.
Have you considered duplicating your response several times in the one comment?
That would be really, really, stupid. As I pointed out, there is no limit on submissions. Are you too stupid to understand just how stupid you need to be?
Cheers.
I detect that you have a low tolerance for stupidity.
Did somebody call you stupid when you were very young?
This is the wait and see year.
All arguments for, against solar ,and for,against co2, I think have been made.
There is nothing left to add or say other then to now wait and see where the climate goes from here if anywhere.
The one thing I want to point out is yes I have been saying global cooling for the past 10 years and it has yet to occur but solar until late 2017 was above my criteria.
Now this is changing and solar did hit my criteria 10 years ago but the duration of overall sub solar activity in general then was just 3 years in contrast to this time which will be 13+ years which should be sufficient if the very low solar conditions we have now continue.
This time the climate should respond through a slight increase in albedo and overall lower sea surface temperatures.
If it does not my confidence will be much less.
I do not want to play the game by saying maybe 5 years ,50 years from now. That is so meaningless. I say now and if it does not happen given very low solar following 10+years of sub solar activity in general I will have to question my thinking.
I have no excuses to come up with if it does not happen this time around. I do not want to say not enough time has elapsed because I think as this year progresses if solar stays in the TANK, the time requirement is in.
We shall see. I have put myself on the line but I can afford to do so unlike many professionals in this business that always have to leave themselves with an out or excuse which is all we ever hear.
They do not have the guts to make a climate prediction and sink or swim with it. Al they do is talk generalities.
salvatore…”I do not want to play the game by saying maybe 5 years ,50 years from now. That is so meaningless. I say now and if it does not happen given very low solar following 10+years of sub solar activity in general I will have to question my thinking”.
Kudos, mate. All great scientists are open to rethinking a problem. Only dumb alarmists get stuck on a paradigm and can’t let go no matter how much evidence opposes them.
The effects of galactic radiation on ozone above the polar circle and changes in humidity in the high troposphere are evident in long periods of time (over 5 years).
“I will be proven correct along with many in my camp that predict this will be the decade of global cooling and a large part of that cooling will be due to LOW solar activity. Mark my words.”
– Salvatore del Prete, Reply to article: IC Joanna Haigh – Declining solar activity linked to recent warming, 10/8/2010
– http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6428
So by the end of year 2018 if we are still this warm given very low solar you guys can call me out and I will not have much to say in my defense.
Okay David.
Salvatore, 8 years ago you said that warming ended in 2002.
Because we are still warm as of today, so the clock is ticking.
But unlike me the other side even if global temperatures do not continue to rise will NEVER say they may be wrong.
That is the difference because I come without an agenda unlike the other side which is phony and all agenda driven.
AGW theory has nothing to stand on until the climate becomes unique in degree of warmth which it is no where near, when looking at the recent and more extensive climatic history of the earth.
They have nothing. So if cooling does not occur I may be wrong but unless it continues to warm gong forward so to may they be wrong.
I’ve stated the kind of global temp evolution that would need to occur that would cause me to change my thinking.
“AGW theory has nothing to stand on until the climate becomes unique in degree of warmth which it is no where near”
“Unique” in terms of what? The planet’s surface was 1000C 4.5 billion years ago, so we will never get ‘unique’ temperatures until the planet is swallowed by the sun in a few billion years.
Do you mean something else when you say ‘unique’?
Dear Dr. Spencer-san:
I’m sure all of us would greatly appreciate it if you could kindly update your graph showing the huge disparity between CMIP5 model projections vs. the UAH dataset.
The latest version of your graph I’ve seen shows UAH data through December 2016, which marked the peak warming spike of the 2015/16 Super El Nino event:
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/modsvsobs.png
Because we’ve had 2 weak La Nina events since December 2016, most of 2015/16 Super El Nino warming spike has been negated, with the UAH temp anomalies now almost 0.7C cooler than in December 2016.
If you could kindly update this comparative graph within the next few months, it would be most appreciated and helpful.
Because of lag effect, the weak La Nina global cooling will likely continue on for another 2~3 months, so perhaps May would be great time to revise your graph, as the UAH anomaly for April 2018 should be at or near 0.0C by then.
Thank you.
On the graph: points and questions:
* The obs are 5-year averages, which smooth out larger departures, cold and warm. You’ll notice that 1998, which is the 2nd warmest year in the satellite record, is placed much lower in the 5-year smooth.
* Are the model outputs also 5-year averages or annual?
* Are the uncertainty envelopes for models included? Why/why not?
* Why is 1979 chosen as the baseline? Why would it not be better to chose a longer term baseline? Or a different year?
* In which year do the models shift from hind-cast to forecast?
* Are the model results for surface or lower tropospheric data?
* Which balloon data sets?
* Assuming RSS and UAH are 2 of the satellite data sets, what is the other?
Note: This is how you actually do skepticism.
There’s a problem with that model/obs comparison graph.
I checked AR5 (IPCC) for the model projections. The mean warming from 2000 – 2020 in those charts is about 0.4C. In the Christy graph above it’s about 0.7C. That’s almost twice as much warming.
What gives?
IPCC has warming from 1979 to 2020 at about 0.6C. The Christy graph above has 1C warming for the same period. Again, nearly twice as much as the IPCC models.
My skeptometer is peaking.
Looking at Christy’s chart again I see that the model results are for the mid-troposphere, so can’t be compared with temp evolution of the surface (what I checked in the IPCC).
More specifically, the tropical mid-troposphere. Wonder what the reason was for focusing on this particular zone. Is the model/obs comparison about the ‘hotspot’?
That’s the problem with lack of context.
Stratospheric Intrusions are when stratospheric air dynamically decends into the troposphere and may reach the surface, bringing with it high concentrations of ozone which may be harmful to some people. Stratospheric Intrusions are identified by very low tropopause heights, low heights of the 2 potential vorticity unit (PVU) surface, very low relative and specific humidity concentrations, and high concentrations of ozone. Stratospheric Intrusions commonly follow strong cold fronts and can extend across multiple states. In satellite imagery, Stratospheric Intrusions are identified by very low moisture levels in the water vapor channels (6.2, 6.5, and 6.9 micron). Along with the dry air, Stratospheric Intrusions bring high amounts of ozone into the tropospheric column and possibly near the surface. This may be harmful to some people with breathing impairments. Stratospheric Intrusions are more common in the winter/spring months and are more frequent during La Nina periods. Frequent or sustained occurances of Stratospheric Intrusions may decrease the air quality enough to exceed EPA guidelines.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00960/een0o3isigc5.png
Ozone growth in the lower stratosphere starts with a geomagnetic modulation of galactic cosmic rays (GCR) and ozone production in the lower stratosphere through ion-molecular reactions initiated by GCR.
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/monitor.gif
The GCR increase is modulated by the Earth’s magnetic field.
http://www.geomag.nrcan.gc.ca/images/field/fnor.gif
Very low temperatures in Alberta, Canada and Montana in the US,
where there is a large amount of ozone.
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00960/wrqyc8ygftzc.png
ren…”Stratospheric Intrusions are when stratospheric air dynamically decends into the troposphere and may reach the surface, bringing with it high concentrations of ozone which may be harmful to some people”.
Happens every winter when there is no solar energy or limited solar energy during the Arctic winter. No warm air rising, cooler air descends.
It’s likely the ozone killing off the polar bears.
What a grossly stupidity and self-centred view by a couple of crackpots.
Alberta, Canada and Montana do not constitute the world. Consider:
“The northernmost weather station in the world, Cape Morris Jesup in Greenland, saw temperatures stay above freezing for almost 24 hours straight last week, and then climb to 43 degrees Fahrenheit (6.1 degrees Celsius) on Saturday (Feb 24) before dropping again.
But that Saturday (Feb 24) temperature was a whopping 45 degrees Fahrenheit above whats normal this time of year”
pp, obviously you do not understand the wanderings of the polar vortex.
Your confusion is fun to watch.
Gordon says:
“No warm air rising, cooler air descends.”
It’s a radiation deficit surface to space, air aloft is normally warmer.
I’m just not seeing the modelled warming acceleration, no wild accelerated warming, nada nothing, just not happening that acceleration .
Why are the models so badly in error ?
sun spot…”Why are the models so badly in error ?”
At least two factors. One factor is the weighting modelers have arbitrarily given to the warming power of CO2. They have claimed a warming effect of 9% to 25% which is nonsense given the trace mass of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Another factor is the positive feedback arbitrarily claimed by modelers for CO2 in the atmosphere. The theory goes that CO2, at 0.04% of the atmosphere, can feed back enough energy to super-heat the surface that gave it the energy in the first place. Super-heating the surface beyond the temperature it is heated by solar energy would theoretically release more water vapour into the atmosphere, created a positive feedback situation leading to Hansen’s tipping point.
There are several problems with this theory. For one, that kind of runaway feedback requires an amplifier. Modelers seems to think the feedback can create amplification on it’s own, which is nonsense. Another problem is the transfer of heat from a colder region of the atmosphere, or even an atmosphere in thermal equilibrium with the surface, to the surface. That breaches the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
It also breaches common sense. It is claiming essentially that heat can be transferred to the atmosphere and back again to increase the heat level in the surface that created the heat after converting it from solar energy.
All in all, modeling theory is based on pseudo-science. That’s why it does not work.
GR says:
“Another problem is the transfer of heat from a colder region of the atmosphere, or even an atmosphere in thermal equilibrium with the surface, to the surface. That breaches the 2nd law of thermodynamics.”
Wrong. Again you show you don’t understand the 2LOT.
davie believes he understands 2LoT.
He also believes 5800K can radiatively heat something to 800,000K.
He’s hilarious.
Mr Hysteria, you are suffering from the same disease as MF -boring repetitiveness.
Maybe you’re not actually bored. Maybe you’re just brain-dead.
n,
Maybe you’re too stupid to know the difference between boredom and mindless vacuity.
Which do you think it might be? Or dont you know?
Cheers.
We see that GR still has his blinders on. No, IR back radiation from greenhouse gases doesn’t violate the 2nd Law. And, GR still insists that the world must be wired to an amplifier for natural processes to cause an amplification of some perturbation in climate. GR’s tenacious hold on his incorrect asdsumptions suggests that he has an agenda, thus isn’t interested in real world science. As our Fearless Leader might say, So Sad…
Sun Spot says:
“Im just not seeing the modelled warming acceleration, no wild accelerated warming, nada nothing, just not happening that acceleration .”
What acceleration are the models projecting?
This?
“New NASA Study Finds Dramatic Acceleration in Sea Level Rise,” Tereza Pultarova, Space.com, March 2, 2018
https://www.space.com/39858-dramatic-sea-level-rise-nasa-study.html
davie, did you know that the water was already over your head? See, if you had a job you could move out of that basement apartment.
Glad to help.
Why are the models so badly in error?
That’s a question worth testing without any blinkers.
Here are 2 different results:
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/modsvsobs_thumb.png?w=1603&h=1095
http://blogs.reading.ac.uk/climate-lab-book/files/2014/01/fig-nearterm_all_UPDATE_2018-panela.png
As far as I can tell, quite a few people simply latch on to the graph that tells the story they prefer.
What I tend to do is investigate the assumptions, data and baselining for each of the graphs before coming to any (provisional) conclusion.
Why would anyone calling themselves a skeptic avoid such analysis?
Investigation reveals that global temps are not the only metric covered by climate models. So there is a lot more to the notion of their validity than just one parameter.
Simple statements like the one I’ve quoted obscure the *truth*. Getting a handle on it requires lots of reading and thinking, but I rarely see much evidence of that WRT climate models on the less technical climate blogs.
We have a combination of a weakening geo magnetic field and solar magnetic field which should increase galactic cosmic rays further which I believe does have climatic impacts.
There is probably a threshold level.
I think there are threshold levels with al items involved with the climate but they are not so easy to attain but it has happened and will again.
Take the sun the reason why some do not think it effects the climate is because they think the changes are to minor but everyone agrees if the sun were to change by some x amount the climatic impacts would be dramatic.
The question is what is the x amount of change needed by the sun to accomplish this?? How long of a duration period?
I think my criteria is enough which I have posted many times if it is within a period of sub solar activity in general for several years.
We will see.
Tropopause Height
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/gif_files/gfs_hgt_trop_NA_f00.png
Forecast on March 7.
http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00960/x61d1t2p7zhq.png
“The question is what is the x amount of change needed by the sun to accomplish this??”
Earth is warmed by the tropical oceans absorbing sunlight.
Different spectrum of sunlight travels different distances thru the ocean before being absorbed.
Portions of blue and UV light travel the furthest thru ocean waters and can about 100 meters below the surface.
Shortwave IR is about 1/2 of all sunlight reaching Earth’s
Oceans. Red light and Shortwave IR only travel a couple meters
below the ocean surface before being absorbed.
Increasing or decreasing Earth average temperature requires
thousands of years.
Earth’s average temperature is related to the average temperature of the entire oceans of Earth. Which is currently
about 3.5 C.
Earth has had it’s entire average temperature of about 15 C or
warmer. When earth has had such warm oceans, Earth has a hothouse climate. And currently we are in a global ice box climate.
–When earth has had such warm oceans, Earth has a hothouse climate. And currently we are in a global ice box climate.–
A definition of ice box climate is cold oceans and polar ice caps.
To have a polar ice cap one needs land in the polar regions.
To have any kind of ice cap, one needs a land surface.
Ocean surfaces have a warming effect as compare to land surface. When you have oceans large land areas have a cooling
effect, though small islands can have a warming effect, waters around island and island itself can have higher average temperatures. And of course one can have lakes and other bodies of water on Land. Though this is insignicant in terms of global temperatures.
In our ice box climate one can have short term effects upon
global temperature. This is largely due to having a warm ocean surface temperature above the cold ocean.
The transportations and mixing of ocean surface can rapidly change regional and global air temperatures.
But it does not take 1000’s of years to have a major change in the climate. Look at the YD some 10,000 years ago coming and especially going in just decades, and more recently the Medieval Warm period ending and the Little Ice Age beginning in less then a century later.
There are many more examples.
Well we are in an ice box c!image.
See above
S,
The Younger Dryas is but one example. Major shift in less than a decade. Chaotic behaviour provides a complete explanation. No CO2 magic needed.
Cheers.
Major shift in Greenland.
Are we not speaking of global temps?
When the sun is 45 degrees away from zenith, the sunlight has
to travel thru about 10% more distance to reach same depth as
compared the sun at zenith. And when sun is 60 degrees away from zenith (or 30 degrees above the horizon) it has travel thru twice as much water. Or about 2 hours after sunrise the light levels at 50 meter depth will be about same as light levels at 100 meter depth at noon.
Only a small portion of Earth at any point in time has the sun less than 45 degrees away from zenith.
When the sun is more than 90 degrees from zenith, it’s night. Half Earth is night, but next larger portion of Earth is when the sun is between 45 and 90 degrees away from zenith- at equator and at equinox, 1/2 area but as go further from equator it’s more than 1/2.
Earth has about 510 million- 255 million night and day. Less than 45 degrees: 78.5 million
255 – 78.5 = 176.5 million sq km
Or about 2/3rds of sunlit area having sunlight further then 45 degrees away from zenith.
Or more UV could be warming shallower waters outside the tropics “more” and during 1/2 of tropical day could warming
“More”, shallower waters.
Salvatore wrote:
“Take the sun the reason why some do not think it effects the climate is because they think the changes are to minor but everyone agrees if the sun were to change by some x amount the climatic impacts would be dramatic.”
OK Salvatore, if the sun were to change by X, what would be the change Y in the climate? What is Y?
DA,
OK DA. Why are you stupid? Why should anyone go to the trouble of treating your gotchas seriously?
You cant even tell anyone what the climate is, let alone how you would know how it has changed! What a stupid question – well, more of a stupid gotcha!
Carry on David.
Cheers.
This is off-topic but I have to post it to illustrate how the human mind at the so-called highest level can become seriously deluded and warped. It’s obvious that kind of thinking at a different level has lead to the theory of AGW.
********placeholder to test link for WordPress filters********
This is from Stephen Hawking, supposedly one of the brilliant thinkers of our time. Hawking has tuned in on climate science as well claiming we are all doomed due to anthropogenic causes. That in itself convinced me this guy is off the deep end. What follows seals the deal.
I might add that 97% of people likely agree with him.
Quantum theory introduces a new idea, that of imaginary time. Imaginary time may sound like science fiction, and it has been brought into Doctor Who. But nevertheless, it is a genuine scientific concept. One can picture it in the following way. One can think of ordinary, real, time as a horizontal line. On the left, one has the past, and on the right, the future. But theres another kind of time in the vertical direction. This is called imaginary time, because it is not the kind of time we normally experience. But in a sense, it is just as real as what we call real time.
What he refers to as ordinary time is itself an illusion since time was obviously created by the human mind. The horizontal line to which he refers, with the past on the left and the future on the right is an illusion that exists only in the human mind. It has no physical existence whatsoever. No one can demonstrate it.
Some people claim clocks measure time, which is nonsense. Clocks are synchronized to the rotational period of the Earth, not to some illusionary dimension no one can detect or measure. We have created the concept of spcae-time based on the rotational period of the Earth.
Now the idiots in quantum theory have added an imaginary time to the illusionary time. I am sure that is based on complex number theory where there is a real axis and an imaginary axis. The x-axis would be real and the y-axis imaginary, represented by ‘i’ where i = square root of -1.
Complex number theory is useful in electrical engineering, where, for example, you have an electric motor which has real power and imaginary power. The imaginary power is actually real, but it is reactive and used up creating the magnetic field for an electric motor.
It is plotted at right angles to the real power, producing a power factor angle as a resultant between the real power and the imaginary power. That becomes really important in power grids during peak demand periods when the power factor angle increases due to imaginary power consumption.
Applying such a theory to an illusion like time shows how stupid some parts of theoretical physics has become. Such researchers have essentially lost touch with the real world and live in a world of fantasy. Not much different than alarmist climate science.
I am not poking fun at the physical infirmities experienced by Hawking. I empathize with him spending his life in the physical condition he inherited and I do not doubt his abilities in his field. However, his field is founded on utter nonsense of a mathematical nature.
Math, by itself, and of itself, can lead to utter nonsense. One of the great physicists of our time, David Bohm, alluded to that when he claimed that an equation with no reality to back it is garbage. That’s what Hawking et al have managed to produce.
He claimed the other day that nothing existed prior to the Big Bang. People talk about Creation theory being fictitious but this goes well beyond that. At least the idea of God creating the universe has to have a semblance of sense, even to an atheist.
This makes no sense whatsoever based on anything we have hitherto understood about science and the physical universe. It’s sci-fi of the highest order with nothing to support the theory except mathematical equations.
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2018/03/05/stephen-hawking-says-knows-what-happened-before-dawn-time.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxnews%2Fmost-popular+%28Internal+-+Most+Popular+Content%29
correction….the following was quoted from the article. Quotation marks deleted by WordPress.
“Quantum theory introduces a new idea, that of imaginary time. Imaginary time may sound like science fiction, and it has been brought into Doctor Who. But nevertheless, it is a genuine scientific concept. One can picture it in the following way. One can think of ordinary, real, time as a horizontal line. On the left, one has the past, and on the right, the future. But theres another kind of time in the vertical direction. This is called imaginary time, because it is not the kind of time we normally experience. But in a sense, it is just as real as what we call real time”.
No Gordon, there is no “imaginary time” in quantum theory.
Whoever wrote that does not know what they’re talking about. (They’re probably misunderstanding the Minkowski metric.) That you fell for it is not surprising — you have shown here you fall for lots of pseudoscience.
Davie, you’re such a clown.
Go back and read Gordon’s very first sentence.
The fact that you can’t understand is not surprising–you have shown here there is a lot you don’t understand.
It’s fun to watch.
DA,
Youll appreciate a Feynman quote –
“If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don’t understand quantum mechanics.
You might think you understand. Maybe you are smarter than Feynman. I assume you are just stupid and trying to appear smart. Can you show otherwise?
Cheers.
Gordon, surely with your background in electrical engineering, you have run across the idea of imaginary numbers used to express phase angles for AC circuits. Are you similarly opposed to this standard approach in EE?
Tim, you probably just missed the paragraphs where Gordon discussed this.
“Complex number theory is useful in electrical engineering. ..”
Better luck with your “gotchas”, next time.
I was legitimately curious — not a ‘gotcha’ as you assumed.
Imaginary numbers have been applied to a wide variety of physical situations. It seems somewhat arbitrary to accept their use in one (familiar) setting but reject it in another (unfamiliar) setting. Many people would similarly scoff at imaginary numbers on AC circuit analysis until they spend a couple years learning about how useful it it. Similarly, unless someone spends a few years learning about the use of ‘imaginary time’ in QM, they are really not in a position to judge.
Sorry Tim, not buying it. If you were “legitimately curious”, you would not have tried to imply Gordon had not “ran across the idea of imaginary numbers”.
Have you noticed your “spin” fails more often than not?
He may simply have missed that bit. Gordon did say that the imaginary power is actually real, so his position is a little unclear. Tim’s question is legitimate either way.
I remember David Bohm. He was a weirdo communist who believed in the paranormal and that Uri Geller could bend keys and spoons.
I had the pleasure of applying electroconvulsive therapy to him in 1991.
n,
People who take pleasure in applying electric shocks to peoples’ brains are stupid, not to say sadistic.
You probably believe that CO2 makes thermometers hotter, which demonstrates the ingrained nature of your stupidity. Have you considered having electroconvulsive therapy yourself? You could ask John Cook from SkS to deliver the shocks, dressed in his Nazi uniform. Seems appropriate.
Stupidity thinking stupidity with more stupidity.
Cheers.
Tell me – do you believe Uri Geller could bend keys and spoons?
pp, do you believe CO2 can warm the planet?
p,
Given a holding device and a large hammer I can bend spoons, keys, and all sorts of other malleable items. Are you stupid enough to believe Uri Geller couldnt?
Maybe you could even learn how to do it yourself. Not much brainpower required.
Cheers.
Nothing doesn’t exist now, and there is no reason it should exist in the future or before time.
+1
g,
I’m probably going to get a caning from all and sundry, but . . .
If time is an artefact of “matter”, then things such as quantum entanglement, photons having to necessarily “travel back in time”, and so on, might become explicable. I don’t how this could be demonstrated by reproducible experiments , so it’s just speculation, of course.
Cheers.
“At least the idea of God creating the universe has to have a semblance of sense, even to an atheist.”
Who created “God?”
DA,
Who cares? Ask yourself on your own blog – at least you know you’ll get a stupid answer to a pointless, irrelevant, and stupid question,
Cheers.
You don’t believe in (a) god, you don’t believe in the data, everybody appears “stupid”, and you spend all your time blogging.
Tell me – what is the point of such an existence?
p,
Mind reading – fail. Logic – fail.
Why should I tell you anything, if you are so stupid as believe you can read minds?
Cheers.
I tried reading your mid but it only comprised one paragraph.
Whom ever created “God” is God.
So if “God” created the universe and God created “God” then I
Would say the true God is God.
It seems reasonable there is one God, knowing God is problematic, as I can not even know my cat, nor can I really believe in my cat.
But the cat is around here somewhere.
According to some religions humans are similar to God – and my cat isn’t.
Gbaikie, “Whom ever created God is God.”
Why would God need to create God? Sounds like He already existed to begin with.
Well I am open to idea that there are many gods, though I think there is only one God.
It’s not clear to me that I could discern the difference between a god and God. Though I not too concerned about this possible inability at the present time. Or I don’t spend time
believing in a god or the God.
The idea that gods are engaged in warfare might be human projection than something close to reality.
Humans and animals are engaged in warfare and there are many kinds of warfare (does not require pools or rivers of blood and etc – or business or sports or art can a war). So one can have a war of ideas (or all war is that) but “war on poverty” is merely dumb idea.
Anyhow think gods or God are not engaged in war of any kind.
But this does not mean they have the ideology of Pacifism – or they are not at war with war. War is human thing and gods are not humans.
I always love it when people try to show they are intelligent by using “whom”, while not realising they are using it where it doesn’t belong thus proving the opposite.
Dr. Roy Spencer, on March 8, the temperature in northern Alabama will fall below 0 C in the night.
How many times has this happened before?
Gordon,
You, binny, des, barry and other alarmists fail to understand that a straight line trend lacking context is nothing but crunched numbers. All of you have completely ignored the contexts producing the data because you think plugging raw data into an algorithm tells you something.
You clearly have no idea what I think about trend lines and contexts. Explaining the limits of trend line results is something that is regularly done when silly skeptics make bald assertions about them.
For example, your consistent refrain about the 1998-2012 trend lines relies on ignoring all sorts of context, such as the wide confidence interval for that period, what the IPCC said about it in total,and more.
On this period you ignore and even deliberately reject all sorts of context so you can keep bleating ‘hiatus’.
You are perfectly happy to accept “crunched numbers” and believe “an algorithm tells you something” whenever a mean trend line suits your predilections. And you go on about it for years without letting any context interfere with your view.
Good comment, barry.
Gordon clearly doesnt understand trend analysis, so instead of learning it, he simply rejects it all.
barry,
If you believe you can predict the future by examining the past you are stupid.
If you believe that establishing a trend tells you anything about the future, you are stupid.
Even Governments in some countries require that financial hucksters advertising informs potential suckers that past performance is not an indicator of future performance.
Play with your charts. Add more colors. Crank up your spreadsheet to dizzying speed.
It wont help, will it?
Cheers.
And yet you are quite happy to focus on a so-called “pause” or absence of trend in the data.
A somewhat illogical approach – no?
p,
Your mind reading skills come up short again. Just what I expect from a stupid person trying to put words in my mouth.
No.
The data is merely historical observations. It does not matter what you or I think about facts. If you believe that you can change historical facts, you are stupid. If you believe you can see into the future, you are stupid.
Nature doesn’t care what anybody thinks. Chaos rules. Stupid people cannot bring themselves to accept reality.
Cheers.
So – you are a nihilist – yes?
p,
Stupid, irrelevant, and pointless question – no? Or should that be stupid, irrelevant, and pointless question – yes?
Cheers.
Do you know what a nihilist is?
p,
You ask the pointless, irrelevant and stupid question.
I refuse to answer. A stupid person would believe that repeating the same action, and expecting a different outcome is rational. Good for you.
Cheers.
barry
I have no problem with the 1998-2012 period being considered as a pause.
But I of course agreee with you when you write: ‘…such as the wide confidence interval for that period.’
Let us tell it in numbers, i.e. in °C/decade (2σ).
1. Linear estimates for 1998-2012:
– UAH 6.0 TLT: -0.072 ± 0.247
– RSS 3.3 TLT: -0.053 ± 0.248
– RSS 4.0 TLT: 0.023 ± 0.258
– Had-CRUT 4.6: 0.052 ± 0.140
– NOAA: 0.085 ± 0.145
– GISS: 0.098 ± 0.143
2. Now the estimates for 1979-2017:
– RSS 3.3 TLT: 0.137 ± 0.059
– RSS 4.0 TLT: 0.192 ± 0.061
– Had-CRUT 4.6: 0.173 ± 0.036
– NOAA: 0.167 ± 0.037
– GISS: 0.174 ± 0.038
Source: Kevin Cowtan’s trend computer.
Oh I forgot UAH in (2):
– UAH 6.0 TLT: 0.128 ± 0.060
La P,
OCD? Obsession with the obviously malleable historical data might seem odd to a rational person. What possible good can it do you? What would you learn?
A chaotic system is not amenable to prediction. It needs no external influences to behave chaotically and unpredictably. Anyone who believes that they can predict the future state of a chaotic system any better than I can, is stupid. Thats why even AGW enthusiasts with access to multi-million dollar computers are not willing to bet one cent of their own money on their stupid predictions being any better than a naive persistence forecast.
They are stupid, but possessed of a larger than average amount of animal cunning.
Cheers.
“A chaotic system is not amenable to prediction. It needs no external influences to behave chaotically and unpredictably. ”
This is a common misleading interpretation of chaos.
A correct interpretation:
“Everything is chaotic IN THE LONG TERM. In the short term most things are predictable.”
—
The trajectory of a billiard ball is predictable for about 5 seconds but not any longer.
Weather is predictable out till about 7-10 days but not any further.
The Earth’s orbit around the sun is predictable for a few million(?) years but not any longer.
Climate statistics may be unpredictable on time scales of tens of thousands of years, but much more predictable on time scales of decades and centuries.
—
Dr N,
Complete nonsense. Your interpretation is stupid, and has little to no relevance to my statement, particularly in the context of the atmosphere.
You are confused, as well as stupid. You are confusing a naive persistence forecast with a physics based prediction. Saying you can predict an average, but not predict the data from which the average is derived, is magical thinking. Your guess will be no better or worse than anyone else’s.
Stupid. You believe you can trajectory of a real billiard ball for about five seconds. Try it. You can’t. All in your imagination.
As to weather, you can’t even predict wind speed and direction with any reasonable precision 30 seconds hence, let alone 7-10 days!
Stupid.
Cheers.
“Anyone who believes that they can predict the future state of a chaotic system any better than I can, is stupid.”
I think you will find that a few people have actually won money betting on the predictions of warmer temperatures. You obviously have not kept up to date.
Let’s try and put some money where your mouth is. Give me your estimate of the chances of UAH global annual average value being higher next year than last.
A warmist might say 60:40
A sane skeptic would simply say 50:50.
A brave skeptic may like to bet on it being cooler and would say 40:60
A coward (which most of you lot are) will say nothing.
Dr N,
You must be really stupid, or you cannot comprehend plain English.
Try actually reading what I said, rather than indulging in stupid, irrelevant and pointless grandstanding. If you truly believe that you can predict the future better than I, go your hardest. State your stake, make your prediction. If I disagree, I say so. That’s the bet.
Give it a try, if you wish. Gavin Schmidt is probably not as stupid as you. After a bit of thought, he declined. I wonder why?
Cheers.
I say the chances are 60:40 in favour of warmer.
Just as I predicted (with 100% accuracy), I get the coward’s response from M.
La P,
“I have no problem with the 1998-2012 period being considered as a pause.
But I of course agreee with you when you write: ‘…such as the wide confidence interval for that period.’ ”
Well yes, as long as you ignore context (like the confidence intervals for the trends), as Gordon says, the ‘pause’ can seem pretty meaningful.
Strangely, the ‘pause’ is meaningful to Gordon precisely because he ignores context.
Pretty selective outlook he has.
Gordon Robertson says:
March 5, 2018 at 1:31 PM
‘The graph I looked at initially seemed to suggest there is little difference between the UAH graph on Roys site and the Had-crut fudgery.
There is a good deal of difference between the two sets of data.’
*
For the last time… If you still don’t understand (or, more probably, don’t want to understand), then you don’t, no problem for me.
1. I start with the Excel graph
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1520210188196.jpg
wich is (apart from its non centered running mean) exactly similar to
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_February_2018_v6.jpg
2. In that Excel graph, I now modify, for convenience, the UAH plots representation as follows:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1520291711525.jpg
2. I add to that graph two plots of Had-CRUT4.6 and NOAA you consider both to be ‘fudgery’:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1520292219782.jpg
As you can see on the left, each dataset was plotted wrt its own baseline:
– 1981-2010 for UAH;
– 1961-1990 for Had-CRUT;
– 1971-2000 for NOAA (this one is according to the WMO recommendation valid till 17.01.2018, it’s now 1981-2010).
3. But this representation is of course wrong.
If you want to correctly represent anomaly based time series, you must adjust their anomalies to a common level:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1520294117990.jpg
You think it’s incorrect, or even warmist manipulation? Your problem.
4. You asked me: “Why do you use Excel, instead of looking at the original graphs?”
Here is one of many many answers:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1520294336531.jpg
My friend J.-P. and I we like to look at such graphs, to see where plots correlate or don’t etc etc.
You think it’s all rubbish? So what!
La P,
So you are stupid. Intrinsically, it matters not that you are, but someone gullible might believe your rubbish, and become poorer because of it. Their choice, of course, just as it is yours to believe in fairy tales.
You may wish to criticize me for pointing out that there are alternatives to your nonsense. Go ahead.
Its a free-ish world. Why not let people make up their own minds?
Cheers.
Do you have any friends outside of this blog site?
Or is everybody in your eyes just “stupid” ?
p,
What a pair of stupid (not to leave out irrelevant and pointless) questions – gotchas, really.
Why should I answer? Can you provide some reason?
Of course not. That’s one reason you are stupid. Stupid is as stupid does.
Cheers.
“Why should I answer? Can you provide some reason?”
I suspect that you may need help. I am willing to offer it.
p,
Your suspicions are irrelevant to me, and probably to approximately seven billion other people, I suspect. Maybe you ascribe more importance to your suspicions than any rational person would.
This would make you stupid, in addition to being a slow learner, I suspect.
Keep asking stupid questions. I’ll keep not answering.
Cheers.
Your reluctance to answer questions speaks volumes about a deep-seated insecurity.
Do you think answering questions is a sign of weakness?
p,
As I said before, you can keep asking questions, I will keep not answering them, if I so desire.
Are you just stupid, suffering from uncontrollable urges, or a slow learner? It doesn’t really matter – my care factor remains firmly on zero. Keep at it.
Cheers.
“my care factor remains firmly on zero.”
Interesting, this is a characteristic of psychopaths.
“Are you just stupid, suffering from uncontrollable urges, or a slow learner? It doesnt really matter my care factor remains firmly on zero.”
I suspect this may be a case of projection defined as follows:
Projection is a psychological defense mechanism in which individuals attribute characteristics they find unacceptable in themselves to another person. … In some cases projection can result in false accusations. For example, someone with adulterous feelings might accuse their partner of infidelity.
^^^
I.e. you suffer from uncontrolled urges and are a slow learner.
When we look at this graph comparing within 1871-2017
– AMO in its original, undetrended form
– MEI
– Had-CRUT
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1520294336531.jpg
a few details some might be interested in are visible:
– (1) AMO seems to experience a nice increase on each cycle;
– (2) AMO seems to be influenced by volcanoes in the same way as are the temperature series (it is low during ENSO 1982/83 and the Pinatubo eruption, but high during 1877/78, 1997/98 and 2015/16);
– (3) MEI seems to disconnect from AMO and temperatures by around 2000.
The (3) was a bit surprising for me. Because until now I had believed it would be in correlation with surface temperature time series over the whole record.
Maybe Roy Spencer can explain us this MEI behavior – provided, of course, that the graph is correct :-))
Source for AMO undetrended:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/correlation/amon.us.long.mean.data
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/correlation/amon.climo.data
La P,
Here’s what the IPCC wrote –
In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.
You may just be ignorant about chaotic systems. Gavin Schmidt certainly was, and didn’t seem to be aware of the IPCC position.
After you have acquainted yourself with chaos theory and its application, you might care to demonstrate why you find the IPCC statement lacking in clarity, or insufficient to provide a satisfactory answer to your query.
Of course, a stupid person would refuse to even consider that the IPCC might be right. You probably don’t consider yourself stupid, do you?
Cheers.
Teacher Flynn:
La Pangolina, you shall now repeat ten times after me the following:
“I am stupid.”
Schoolgirl La Pangolina:
“I am stupid.
I am stupid.
I am stupid.
I am stupid.
I am stupid.
I am stupid.
I am stupid.
I am stupid.
I am stupid.
I am stupid.”
LP
The thing is how much of that is natural stupidity and how much is man made ?
Regards
HC
Harry Cummings says:
March 5, 2018 at 7:51 PM
‘The thing is how much of that is natural stupidity and how much is man made ?’
*
My guideline here is Roy Spencer’s meaning since years: half man-made, half natural.
Maybe his most recent work on his 1D climate model has modified the percentage, e.g. to 30 % m-m and 70 % nat.
Then that will become my new guideline.
Simply because froom my personal point of view he is a trustworthy person.
That exactly is also the reason why I believe him when he writes since years that ‘GHE is settled science’.
Not one commenter was ever able to scientifically contradict him on this blog, the usual pseudoskeptic barking dogs the least.
‘Regards’
2u2
R. J. Koelm
La P,
Very good. Stupid, but good. You can count to ten, at least. It has had no effect on you has it?
You may think that repeating that you are stupid might make you smart, but alas, it probably wont.
Cheers.
Do you feel good about yourself belittling somebody in this way?
Is that why you are friendless?
p,
Stupid, irrelevant and pointless question. Why do you ask?
Cheers.
You know deep down that the answers are No and Yes.
We can help you.
No reference, no citation, no link. The marks of a hack.
Luckily google provides the context, and the bits missing from the quote:
“Further work is required to improve the ability to detect, attribute, and understand climate change, to reduce uncertainties, and to project future climate changes… Further work is needed in eight broad areas:
[6] …. Improve methods to quantify uncertainties of climate projections and scenarios, including development and exploration of long-term ensemble simulations using complex models. The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive and requires the application of new methods of model diagnosis, but such statistical information is essential.”
https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/501.htm
Same old ignorance about the difference between predictions and projections. They really don’t know what the differences are. Worse, they’re proud of their ignorance.
I’m referring to the fake a/s ‘skeptics’, of course.
barry,
Short list of synonyms for projection –
estimate, forecast, prediction, calculation, prognosis, prognostication, reckoning, expectation;
Used by normal people. Found in real dictionaries.
My quote was exact, and you have not challenged it. Not my fault if you dont like it, is it?
What part of the quote do you not understand? Or do you think the IPCC is stupid? Overall, the IPCC is probably about as stupid as you. Can’t figure out whether to say projection, prediction, or scenario, so uses them all. Clever?
They all imply the future. The future of a chaotic system is unknowable – at least the IPCC is not stupid enough to be in complete denial. You are, apparently.
Cheers.
You don’t know what projections are WRT to climate models. You also don’t understand the full quote.
oddity, peculiarity, abnormality, irregularity, inconsistency, incongruity
are all synonyms for “anomaly.” And none of them describe what it means in terms of data with respect to baselines.
Scientific usage and popular usage are not always the same. Something else you apparently know nothing about.
A projection is a potential future evolution of a quantity or set of quantities, often computed with the aid of a model. Projections are distinguished from predictions in order to emphasise that projections involve assumptions concerning, e.g., future socio-economic and technological developments that may or may not be realised, and are therefore subject to substantial uncertainty
https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/518.htm
Projections typically presents the future climate state as being within a range (ie, ‘global temps in the last decade of the 20th century are projected to be between 2.5-4.5 C higher than pre-industrial, assuming a economic and emissions “business as usual” scenario’). Predictions are more definitive (‘3.4 C higher than pre-industrial’) and are generally not used by IPCC for long-term climate forecasts.
As the omitted bits point out, future climate states are better expressed as a range of distributions – it’s not possible to predict to the 10th of a degree a future climate state for various reasons, not the least of which is that emissions and other factors are unknowable in the future, so the IPCC has a range of scenarios, each with a different set of economic and mitigatory (or not) assumptions. While models all predict warming for given scenarios, the end-state is different for each of them, and that range is the projection for a given scenario.
Its funny because not long ago we were talking about imagninary numbers then low and behold we get this:
UAH 6.0 TLT: -0.072 0.247
RSS 3.3 TLT: -0.053 0.248
RSS 4.0 TLT: 0.023 0.258
Had-CRUT 4.6: 0.052 0.140
NOAA: 0.085 0.145
GISS: 0.098 0.143
2. Now the estimates for 1979-2017:
RSS 3.3 TLT: 0.137 0.059
RSS 4.0 TLT: 0.192 0.061
Had-CRUT 4.6: 0.173 0.036
NOAA: 0.167 0.037
GISS: 0.174 0.038
Ok so to start with thermometers dont measure to 3 decimal places so every number you see is manufactured through the number crunching process.
I get that you need such small numbers to bluff your way through by attempting to infer some sort of accuracy to the numbers but in the end they are imaginary.
You see trands of 0.037 or whatever and then claim this holds some sort of significance but in the end the real number we are talking about is 0.0 but if we stated this then we would have nothing to discuss.
And yes, yes i know i know nothing about crunching numbers and you do however what i posses you will never have and that is the ability to think cognitively and apply logic and reason because i do not suffer from a form of religious befuddlement.
As Flynn constantly reminds you stupid people do stupid things
‘As Flynn constantly reminds you stupid people do stupid things’
Typical blah blah by people who always criticise but never propose alternatives.
Simple and easy. But useless.
Do something intelligent!
I just did i highlighted your obsession with non existant very small numbers has no bearing on the trends with which you base your warmist views upon.
Like others here i have proposed alternatives here and at many other sites but alas people like you continue with your obsession with very small non existant numbers. If i was to ask what relationship is there between co2 levels and your very small numbers would you be able to clearly explain what it was?
I dont think you could.
La P,
And your comment is not stupid, irrelevant and pointless because . . .?
Cheers.
Ah and once again we find ourselves being sucked down the convoluted rabbit hole of the warmist mind.
I like Flynn refuse to play in your dog and pony show LP, You made claims of trends from data, i and others refute those claims based on valid reasons, reasons that you cannot defend.
Your immediate response is to avoid confronting this by attempted diversions either through abuse and/or misdirection.
The reason why you behave in such a manner is because your belief system is so fragile it could not possibly withstand any scrutiny.
I refuse to follow you down that rabbit hole, if it makes you feel better and more importantly continue to function as a person albeit at a very low level i will leave you with this.
Wow those numbers look great LP, the accuracy of the thermometers really do show we are indeed headed for boilageddon quick lets destroy our western societies by removing our ability to generate stable, reliable and cheap electricity, lets install smart meters in ever house so we can turn off power to said house at a moments notice…………whats that……..but what about the elderly and infirm i hear you say well FU&*EM we are saving the god damn planet there will always be casualties the trick is to make sure its not us.
Now off you go and get that excell program crunching more numbers when you have proegressed to MATLAB maybe you can make a small but useless contribution
C., do you have anger management issues like MF?
p,
Another stupid, irrelevant and meaningless attempt at a gotcha. Stupid people just refuse to learn, I suspect. Maybe that’s why they remain stupid.
Cheers.
LaP to MF:
“Do something intelligent!”
That is like commanding a fish to ride a bike.
Dr N,
And youd no doubt be stupid enough to try.
Cheers.
C,
Even better, you might even note sea levels supposedly calculated to 0.01 mm. Thats roughly about half to an eighth of the thickness as a human hair. Not nearly as thick as the measurebators who produce such nonsense.
The miracles of climatology! Averages rule!
How stupid.
Cheers.
I once worked on a radar that could measure the height of waves i dont ever recall the number crunchers asking for any of that data perhaps they dont know it exists.
What i find amusing is the arbitary tolerance they apply +- whatever what kind of delusion is this………….
Mike, Cracker,
If a lake rises at a rate of 1 meter per year, then on average how much does it rise in a day?
Snape,
That is a stupid question. What is the relevance, if any? It has already happened, according to you. About as stupid as saying someone with a mass of 70kg, and 35 years old, has had an average increase in mass of so much per year. Completely pointless.
The stuff of stupid people, who delight in their apparent mastery of simple arithmetic, in lieu of actually using their brains.
Cheers.
Hint: You don’t need to look for your tape-measure.
Snape,
Hint: You will still be stupid – tape measure notwithstanding.
Cheers.
Yes, these multi decimal places are simply the results of number crunching.
Where you go wrong is assuming that anyone assigns ‘significance’, qualitative or statistical, to 3 decimal places. But that’s the basis for some snark, so it’ll do fine for you.
Why not just ask before leaping off the rhetorical cliff, m’boy? Because you might get a reasonable answer that interferes with an opportunity for venting?
barry,
I’m not sure whether you want anybody to believe the stupid number crunchers intentionally falsify figures just because they can.
Or do you really think that they are too stupid to realise what they are doing, in an effort to look clever?
If somebody publishes stupidly erroneous figures, why would you expect me to ask if they know they are stupid? Their stupidity is supposed to be my fault?
Sounds like climatological thinking to me. Maybe having a few more competent people might help, don’t you think?
Cheers,
They’re not falsified. I can reproduce them exactly with the same linear regression application. Anyone can.
I don’t think you’ve followed the conversation at all.
go to here and be wise
https://www.khanacademy.org/math/ap-statistics/sampling-distribution-ap/sampling-distribution-mean/v/central-limit-theorem
There’s a valid reason why averages can be more precise than the individual instrument.
I was wondering whether Greenland has anything to do with polar vortex or spikes of warm air in polar region.
But didn’t find much to support this idea.
The premise of the wondering is the higher elevation of Greenland. Higher elevation within a polar region should result in more sunlight. Or earlier sunlight than the equinox.
I probably should look at elevation maps of northern Greenland- I think I seen these before (but I don’t have them handy). I also could try to calculate it somehow.
But if have huge mostly flat plain (and slight slope helps)
And you are at high elevation, that should lower the horizon
Now generally if sun is low on horizon, it’s not warming the surface much, but I could imagine it might warm more than expected.
The bigger question is why has Greenland have kilometer thick glaciers (1600 meters to the mile) when it resides in part at least outside the north pole and yet its so damn hot?
Questions questions but nary an answer beyond a mythical trend line that spells doom and gloom for all prepared to listen.
“Questions questions”
That is why we have qualified scientists who know what they are doing and can provide answers to the public.
Angry retired engineers and certified lunatics are irrelevant.
Dr N,
You might be stupid enough to believe that Gavin Schmidt is a qualified scientist. He isnt, of course.
You might be stupid enough to believe that the scientists at NSF, who refused to accept Archimedes principle, knew what they were doing. I dont.
Maybe you are stupid enough to believe that Michael Mann is a Nobel Laureate.
Good for you. You are obviously too stupid to realise how stupid you are. Oh well, you can always blame me for your stupidity.
Cheers.
Calm down.
Michael Mann will be revered long after all the skeptics have all been dispatched.
Just note this:
“Micahel Mann has received a number of honors and awards including NOAA’s outstanding publication award in 2002 and selection by Scientific American as one of the fifty leading visionaries in science and technology in 2002. He contributed, with other IPCC authors, to the award of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. He was awarded the Hans Oeschger Medal of the European Geosciences Union in 2012 and was awarded the National Conservation Achievement Award for science by the National Wildlife Federation in 2013. He made Bloomberg News’ list of fifty most influential people in 2013. In 2014, he was named Highly Cited Researcher by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) and received the Friend of the Planet Award from the National Center for Science Education. He received the Stephen H. Schneider Award for Outstanding Climate Science Communication from Climate One in 2017 and the Award for Public Engagement with Science from the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 2018. He is a Fellow of the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. He is also a co-founder of the award-winning science website RealClimate.org.”
Phew! What an achiever!
As for Gavin Schmidt:
“He was educated at The Corsham School, earned a BA (Hons) in mathematics at Jesus College, Oxford, and a PhD in applied mathematics at University College London.
NASA named Schmidt to head GISS in June 2014.
In October 2011, the American Geophysical Union awarded Schmidt the Inaugural Climate Communications Prize, for his work on communicating climate-change issues to the public. ] He was a contributing author of the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); the work of the IPCC, including the contributions of many scientists, was recognised by the joint award of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. Schmidt was named in November 2004 as one of Scientific American’s “Top 50 Research Leaders” of the year.”
Makes you feel stupid, does’nt it?
Dr N,
Michael Mann. Claims to communicate with trees. Renowned for Mikes Nature trick. Claims to be a climate scientist – has no qualifications in the field at all. Claimed to be a Nobel Laureate in court documents. Too stupid to know whether he was or wasn’t. And so it goes.
Gavin Schmidt. Undistinguished mathematician claiming to be a scientist. Self appointed climatologist – claimed that a probability of 38% meant that 2014 was The hottest year EVAH! Even NOAA changed the 38 to 48, endeavouring to look not quite so stupid. Obviously has difficulty with statistics. Claimed that chaos was irrelevant and non-existent, until I pointed out the IPCC wrote otherwise. And so it goes.
Dumb or dumber? Who would you say is the less intelligent of the two? Or the more stupid, if you prefer.
Cheers.
“Claims to be a climate scientist has no qualifications in the field at all”
Tell us what constitutes climate science qualifications and where you can gain them.
“Undistinguished mathematician claiming to be a scientist. Self appointed climatologist”
I see you are claiming that mathematicians are not scientists.
I understand you can hold a soldering iron and believe that this skill somehow makes you qualified to denigrate such luminaries as MM and GS. You must be seriously brain damaged from too many solder fumes.
We don’t expect a rational answer so don’t bother.
Dr No,
Awwww. Now you dont want me to answer? After bagging me because I choose not to dance to your tune? Is that just stupidity, or inconstant stupidity?
Climate science is an oxymoron, of course. Climate is the average of weather – you are probably stupid enough to believe tha endless playing with the averages of historic observations is science. Are you?t
As to the self styled climate scientist, Gavin Schmidt –
Most fundamentally, mathematics as such relies on pure abstraction, not the scientific method.
Schmidt demonstrates precisely no acquaintance with the scientific method, does he?
If you don’t believe this, bully for you. Real scientists do.
Cheers.
The north pole is a point rather than a region. Most of Greenland is within the Arctic Circle and some would say Greenland is in the polar region- and that Iceland is in polar region, though Iceland is just outside the Arctic Circle.
The average yearly temperature of Greenland is about -17 C a large part of this cold temperature is due to increased elevation from glacial ice. Or if Greenland lost 1 km from highest glacial ice, it’s average would increase by a few degree and Greenland would still have a high elevation due to glacial ice.
Where people live is near sea level and near the ocean, which most of time is ice free.
My apologies to the thoughtful people on this site for mentioning the persistent troll (David Appell).
Like a bad smell he popped up again and again.
gallopingcamel,
There was a young lady from Spain,
Who did it again and again,
And again and again,
And again and again,
and again and again and again.
So –
Dave Appell, if hed been in Spain,
Would do it again and again . . .
Cheers.
Quick!
MF is having one of his episodes!
Pass me the electrodes!
n,
And a photo of John Cook, SkS, standing proudly in his Nazi uniform, cranking up the voltage to 11, wearing a sadistic leer.
Keep the hilarity going. You’re not much use for anything else, are you?
Cheers.
Very interesting. Your fascination with Nazi uniforms and John Cook points to some disturbing tendencies. I hope you don’t own a gun.
profP
yes – we notice Mike gets a bit excited now and then. We turn the cold hose on him and he settles down very quickly.
And no, he does’nt have access to firearms. We also remove all sharp objects from his vicinity.
It was John Cook who appeared to be dressed in a Nazi uniform, apparently intending to frighten deniers (whatever a denier is supposed to be). He has a PhD in cognitive psychology, which makes him an expert on climatology, the science of divining the future through the examination of averages of numbers.
I can understand why even a stupid AGW proponent might wish to disassociate themselves from such a clown.
Fire off another salvo of stupid, irrelevant, and pointless comments at your discretion.
Cheers.
“It was John Cook who appeared to be dressed in a Nazi uniform”
Interesting. I am not familiar with the scene you describe. I don’t suppose you kept a copy of that image did you? Do you keep it under your pillow by any chance ? That would be another clue as to your state of mind.
p,
It is not my fault if you are both ignorant and stupid. You may blame it on me, but it wont cure your stupidity. You may rectify your ignorance if you choose.
Your choice.
Cheers.
Dear PP (professor p),
Here’s your photo of John Cook:
https://preview.tinyurl.com/ydggp5ko
You can see more of these sick people from Skeptical Science here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/06/skeptcial-science-takes-creepy-to-a-whole-new-level/
These are your warmist friends. They believe in the GHE as well.
The first link did not work. Try this:
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/1_herrcook.jpg
gallopingcamel says:
March 5, 2018 at 11:02 PM
‘My apologies to the thoughtful people on this site for mentioning the persistent troll (David Appell).’
*
Well gc…
From my point of view, the warmista Appell is absolutely harmless in comparison with all these pseudoskeptic barking dogs trolling here all the time, calling everybody ‘idiot’ or ‘stupid’ whenever s/he has a meaning differing from their egocentric narrative.
Rgds
R. J. Koelm
La P,
You have your point of view, of course. Derived from your fantasy, and not connected to reality. Stupid, really, if you think anybody smarter than you is going to take much notice.
Stick with your brightly coloured graphs of the past. Wave them furiously, listening for the applause. Chant sacred Manntras if you think it will help predict the future.
I know, I know – it sounds stupid. That’s because it is.
Cheers.
camel: instead of following me around, how about telling us where that 150 W/m2 is?
The Earth’s surface radiates, at an average temperature of 15 C, 390 W/m2.
But only 240 W/m2 leaves the top of the atmosphere.
So where is the difference, 150 W/m2?
La Pangolina when will it be warm in Germany?
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00960/28kckt1pi5d6.png
That depends on what you call ‘warm’.
Dr No, does La Nina work in Australia?
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=ausf×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
“The effect of La Nina events on winter/spring rainfall is limited for coastal areas of Victoria and New South Wales, extending almost to Fraser Island in southern Queensland. The reasons for the lack of a consistent response of winter/spring rainfall to El Nino and La Nina events for the coastal areas of New South Wales and southern Queensland are the subject of current research, but it should be noted that rainfall in these parts often arises from the lifting of on-shore air streams as they flow over the Great Dividing Range. A lot of the month to month and year to year rainfall variability from these airstreams seems to be due to the chaotic nature of the mid-latitude weather systems, which form a major feature of the weather and climate patterns of southern and central Australia.
It should not be expected that winter/spring rainfall in any given La Nina year will follow the pattern of the map, nor should it be expected that ‘below average’ rainfall will not occur in a La Nina year.”
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/ninacomp.shtml
“And your comment is not stupid, irrelevant and pointless because . . .?”
That quote above was one of MF’s was intended for MF who is seriously deranged.
In answer to your question:
“does La Nina work in Australia?” I say:
You stupid lazy boy. If you don’t know the answer to that you shoul’nt be wasting ours and your own time. Go back to school for God’s sake.
drno…”In answer to your question:
does La Nina work in Australia? I say:
You stupid lazy boy. If you dont know the answer to that you shoulnt be wasting ours and your own time. Go back to school for Gods sake”.
In other words, you don’t know.
Dr N,
barry seemed to have no problem providing an answer to a question which seemed quite relevant, seemed to have a point, and didn’t appear stupid.
The answer highlighted the fact that the Australian BOM indicated that the effect of La Nia Events could not be quantified or relied on. The BOM referred to chaos in relation to observed variability of various weather parameters.
The fact that you consider a reasonable question about a frequently mentioned phenomenon to be stupid, irrelevant, and pointless, might well indicate that you are stupid, irrelevant and pointless.
Oh well. You are what you are.
Cheers.
You stupid man.
Every student knows about the effects of La Nina on Australia.
It is like asking “Is the pope a Catholic?”
As for posting random irrelevant links, that is like shouting out loud in the hope somebody will think you intelligent. What a loser!
Dr N,
Another stupid, irrelevant and pointless analogy.
Carry on.
Cheers.
M, is that the best you can do?
The same, old, tired, worn-out response to any pointed and witty post (i.e. like all my posts) ? Time to give it a rest eh?
Dr No,
You keep asking stupid, irrelevant, pointless, questions.
I keep refusing to answer. Keep it up if you wish. You appear to stupid to do anything else.
Maybe one day Ill answer. Or maybe not.
Cheers.
“You appear to stupid to do anything else.”
That should be “too stupid”.
dr No:”Is that the best you can do?”
M:”I keep refusing to answer.”
You don’t have much ammunition. Pathetic.
Heavy snowstorms in the north-central US.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00960/tg2kwrmizmwf.png
THE WORSENING COSMIC RAY SITUATION: Cosmic rays are badand they’re getting worse. That’s the conclusion of a new paper just published in the research journal Space Weather. The authors, led by Prof. Nathan Schwadron of the University of New Hampshire, show that radiation from deep space is dangerous and intensifying faster than previously predicted.
The story begins four years ago when Schwadron and colleagues first sounded the alarm about cosmic rays. Analyzing data from the Cosmic Ray Telescope for the Effects of Radiation (CRaTER) instrument onboard NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), they found that cosmic rays in the Earth-Moon system were peaking at levels never before seen in the Space Age. The worsening radiation environment, they pointed out, was a potential peril to astronauts, curtailing how long they could safely travel through space.
This figure from their original 2014 paper shows the number of days a 30-year old male astronaut flying in a spaceship with 10 g/cm2 of aluminum shielding could go before hitting NASA-mandated radiation limits:
In the 1990s, the astronaut could spend 1000 days in interplanetary space. In 2014 only 700 days. “That’s a huge change,” says Schwadron.
Galactic cosmic rays come from outside the solar system. They are a mixture of high-energy photons and sub-atomic particles accelerated toward Earth by supernova explosions and other violent events in the cosmos. Our first line of defense is the sun: The sun’s magnetic field and solar wind combine to create a porous ‘shield’ that fends off cosmic rays attempting to enter the solar system. The shielding action of the sun is strongest during Solar Maximum and weakest during Solar Minimumhence the 11-year rhythm of the mission duration plot above.
The problem is, as the authors note in their new paper, the shield is weakening: “Over the last decade, the solar wind has exhibited low densities and magnetic field strengths, representing anomalous states that have never been observed during the Space Age. As a result of this remarkably weak solar activity, we have also observed the highest fluxes of cosmic rays.”
Back in 2014, Schwadron et al used a leading model of solar activity to predict how bad cosmic rays would become during the next Solar Minimum, now expected in 2019-2020. “Our previous work suggested a ~ 20% increase of dose rates from one solar minimum to the next,” says Schwadron. “In fact, we now see that actual dose rates observed by CRaTER in the last 4 years exceed the predictions by ~ 10%, showing that the radiation environment is worsening even more rapidly than we expected.” In this plot bright green data points show the recent excess:
“The high energy of GCRs allows these particles to penetrate nearly every material known to man, including shielding on space craft; when the cosmic rays penetrate that shielding, secondary particles are produced that can damage organs and lead to cancer,” said Schwadron.
Our Sun also erupts energetic matter from its surface, going through cyclical bursts of magnetic activity where it is more or less active. When the Sun is active, the frequency of eruptions increase, and the Sun’s magnetic field intensifies. While this increases the likelihood of dangerous SEP events, the upside is that the magnetic field also deflects cosmic radiation away from the solar system, protecting astronauts from even more dangerous GCRs. Right now, the Sun is emerging from what many are calling the “mini-maximum”, anticipated to be the smallest solar maximum that modern scientists have ever directly observed.
What Schwadron and his colleagues have found is that the solar activity has been decreasing over the last few solar cycles, and may likely continue to decrease in the next solar cycle. This means that astronauts may face higher levels of radiation than ever before. However, during Solar maximum, the GCR rate drops, and because the overall cycle-integrated solar activity is down, the overall likelihood of SEPs found during solar maximum is also reduced.
“It is a bit ironic, but the reduced GCRs in solar maximum and possibly fewer SEP events because of the trend of decreasing solar activity suggests that the next solar maximum may be one of the safest times to fly missions to deep space in the last 80 years,”said Schwadron.
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2015-02-solar-maximum-safest-missions-mars.html#jCp
Well that’s good, because we can start manned Lunar and Mars
around that time. Or we should start with Lunar robotic missions to Moon, and finish Lunar and start Mars manned after
several years of lunar robotic exploration of lunar poles
Robots to Mars and Moon make much more sense. Much less money. No concern about life support.
Put the expendable robots out there and gather massive data.
Same for ocean depths.
Save people for making sic-fi movies.
Robotic missions can have various advantages but crewed missions also have advantages.
With the Moon, the speed of light delay is a couple seconds, so teloperated robotic missions don’t suffer much from this delay as compared to Mars teloperated missions.
On Earth there are teloperated mining operations but such mining operation have humans at the mining site. After Lunar exploration, one could expect a lot of lunar activity (such as lunar water mining) to be dominated by teloperation operations
and automated processes but it doesn’t make sense not to include a human presence on the Moon. A oceanic oil rig may have more than 100 people living on rig whereas with the Moon
one might limit a similar scale task to a few people.
Humans can do some tasks very quickly as compared relying solely on robotic ability.
In terms of exploration, it’s known that robotic landers
are limited in their capability and require a lot of time
and man hours to achieve rather simple objectives.
One could argue that robotic lunar exploration is all one
needs to determine if the Moon has minable water, but I would disagree, but I would agree that a large portion of the lunar exploration program could be robotic.
The lunar Apollo program used a lot of robotic mission before crew were send to the Moon, though it was a small fraction of total cost. I would argue that the polar exploration program
have a much higher fraction of the program cost being spent on
robotic missions. Roughly 1/2 of a 40 billion dollar total cost be for robotic missions and about 20 billion for lunar crew mission and these crewed mission would bring back lunar samples (like the crewed Apollo missions did) and I think
crew mission can do better job of returning the lunar samples-
and generally speaking do a better job at exploration. Due to technological improvement and due to having the sole purpose
being exploration. Or Apollo was test pilots with some training in geology and exploration was of secondary importance.
The American tax payers have spent about 150 billion dollar
on the International Space Station (ISS) over the last couple
decades – first launched in 1998 – and total costs will probably be about 200 billion dollars.
So when I say lunar program could cost about 40 billion dollars (and require less than 10 years) not many people would agree that this is possible or they would claim that the costs would have to be more than this.
I also think that a Mars program could cost less than 200 billion dollars and main reason Mars program costs more is because it requires more time, decades rather than less than a decade.
And it should noted that I am not talking about American taxpayer spending 40 billion dollars “more” then they are already spending, though it could cost a few billion “more”
and I think it’s “worth” spending hundreds billions dollars “more” as compared to other hundreds of billions dollars being spent.
Germany has wasted about 800 billion dollar on wind and solar
energy and will be more than 1 trillion dollars before they could not continue to throw money it this nonsense.
And Germans are small players in the art wasting tax dollars.
Now, for NASA to only spend 40 billion on lunar exploration
requires NASA to change. Mainly they have to become serious about space exploration. And they got to actually want to explore Mars, rather continue to fantasize about it – which they have been doing for quite a few decades.
salavatore…”Cosmic rays are badand theyre getting worse”.
Then there is an upside to wearing tin hats??? May require more like full body armour. Then again, the high energy radiation would likely go straight through steel like a hot knife through butter.
To measure some kinds of high energy radiation they install water tanks well below the surface where other radiation cannot penetrate.
Deep underground it’s neutrinos that are the radiation. They’re harmless to humans and pass right through you — trillions every second.
Salvatore, post a link when you copy-and-paste.
http://spaceweather.com/
The upshot of this is this could impact the climate which most are oblivious to. Like the ostrich with his/her head in the sand.
I’ve read quite a lot on the possibility that galactic cosmic rays have a significant influence on global climate. So far a link is unproven, and while there seems to be correlation through the 20th century, it appears to have fallen off in the 21st, particularly from about 1980.
No one is sticking their head in the sand.
barry…”So far a link is unproven”
That does not stop you and other alarmists from pushing the unproved claim of AGW.
One thing I have noticed about alarmist scientists and their adherents is a desire to recognize theories only they wish to push. If it’s satellite data, they claim the sat telemetry and interpretation is faulty. If it’s the 2nd law of thermodynamics they claim it is validated by a mysterious net balance of energies.
Of course, if it has anything to do with solar activity or galactic radiation, other than normal solar heating, they claim it is unproved.
When the Little Ice Age is claimed to be responsible for current re-warming, they claim the LIA is either unproved or affected only certain parts of the planet. They cannot explain how a mini ice age affects only a certain locale.
GR wrote:
“They cannot explain how a mini ice age affects only a certain locale.”
Come on.
The LIA was probably caused by a quick string of volcanoes in the late 1200s, and continued because of the ice-albedo effect.
“Abrupt onset of the Little Ice Age triggered by volcanism and sustained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks,” Gifford H. Miller et al, GRL (2013).
DOI: 10.1029/2011GL050168
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL050168/full
2/3rds of the globe’s land is in the Northern Hemisphere, so it’s going to be more prone to lower temperatures by reflection by ice. And the land in the NH goes to a higher latitude than in the SH, meaning sea ice matters more to the NH. There are also natural “see saw” oscillations in the climate system that, after some time, affect the hemispheres in opposite ways.
Read the abstract, at least, of the Miller et al paper linked to above.
A nice sequence
Samalas 1257, VEI 7/8
Quilotoa 1280, 6
Kuwae 1452, 6
Bárðarbunga 1477, 6
Billy Mitchell 1580, 6
Huaynaputina 1600, 6
And shoud the stuff above not help:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2018-0-20-deg-c/#comment-290750
Sorry, reply misplaced.
It’s a tough sell and against the evidence but those with the kung fu death grip won’t let go
from here
https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/10/sun-clouds-climate-connection-takes-a-beating-from-cern/
Really, given all the other information that has come in, this should be the end of the line for the idea that cosmic rays are controlling our climate. But many academics have a hard time giving up on ideas they’re fond of. And, in this case, there’s a segment of the public that’s anxious to believe them.
“Like the ostrich with his/her head in the sand.”
More like the skeptic with his/her head up their .
Why does the increase in galactic radiation have a big impact on the climate?
GCR strongly ionizes the lowest stratosphere (from 10 to 20 km) above the polar circle.
http://sol.spacenvironment.net/nairas/Dose_Rates.html
This has a direct effect on the level of ozone and the pressure over the polar circle.
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00960/igpdzafiim7q.png
The amount and distribution of ozone in the lower stratosphere over North America.
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00960/90q34490gavg.png
Snowstorm almost like a hurricane in the north of the US.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00960/3ye6yuj0stt8.png
To the regular cast of characters: This blog has fallen apart. As a whole, the regular six to eight posters are rude, belligerent and offer little scientific insight. It’s really too bad, this used to be a favorite read of mine. Each of you should be providing your own insight and expertise, and arriving with an open mind. What a troupe of closed minded fools. I only visit on the first of the month these days.
Jake, you have to realize they have NO “scientific insight”. They are desperate. That’s why they are so rude and belligerent.
Most of us just enjoy their comedy. It’s fun to watch.
Hope that helps.
I blame the moderator.
You blame the moderator for other peoples behaviour?
Thats just stupid
Just stupid? Ha!
Not one of these barking dogs trolling here all the time, calling anybody ‘idiot’ or ‘stupid’ in every comment they don’t like, would do that longer than a day at WUWT.
Watts would ban them before sunset.
You do realize you can choose not to engage with whomever is causing you grief
Pang, I have noticed you mentioning WUWT several times. You seem to be impressed with the censorship there. Yes, Skeptics are heavily censored. Is that what you prefer?
Do you need censorship to make your pseudoscience work?
I doubt you will recognize the huge inconsistency in your beliefs.
It’s fun to watch.
Some statistics. The % of posts to date (total~660):
Mike Flynn 22%
Gordon Robertson 11%
barry 7%
{ren,g*e*r*a*n*,snape, Des] about 6% each
La Pangolina 5%
professorP 4%
David Appell 3%
Dr No 2%
etc.
etc.
Tellingly, Roy Spencer has made only 3 comments (0.45%).
What does that tell you?
That you like to count things and play number games…
I guess whatever floats your boat….
Let me help you stupid.
The statistics imply that Roy does’nt care one iota about the trash that litters this blog.
While he might say that it is intended for serious discussion how often does he actually respond to questions or argue the science? I suspect he is happy posting his ideas every couple of weeks and then just collecting the number of hits. Maybe it helps the advertising? The quality does’nt matter, otherwise he would get a moderator to filter it out.
That being said, I tend to agree(!) with g*e*r*a*n* that the blog is mainly for the amusement of those of us with spare time on our hands.
You just cant help yourself can you…
What makes you think i care what those stats mean to you?
I have to agree with G,
Its hilarious to watch
Clown, that is NOT what the statistics imply.
But, your rabid interpretation is hilarious.
More please.
“Clown, that is NOT what the statistics imply.
But, your rabid interpretation is hilarious.”
I’m happy you are amused.
Tell us what you infer from the statistics.
The clown requests: “Tell us what you infer from the statistics.”
As I indicated, I need to be contributing more.
It’s a dark world out there, and many folks need light.
Dang, I need to do better.
(I was too busy with T-shirt sales.)
Let me guess what the T-shirts say:
“I’m a skeptik, kick me”
“Feeling warm ladies? I’m your man!”
“The only good warmist is a dead warmist”
“Global warming -hilarious!”
“Gun control -hilarious!”
“World poverty – hilarious!”
“I’ve got cancer – hilarious!”
If so, let me know how to purchase one.
“Dang, I need to do better.”
You certainly do if you wish to stay amongst the “regular six to eight posters {who} are rude, belligerent and offer little scientific insight”
I hadn’t thought of that one:
“Feeling warm ladies? Im your man!”
Hope you will not expect any royalties.
“Hope you will not expect any royalties.”
Nah thanks. I don’t expect you will make any money.
Dr N,
It tells me that you have no science whatever.
For this reason, you are endeavoring to impose your will on Dr Spencer, to make inconvenient truths go away.
It also tells me that you choose to waste your time counting comments, rather than acquainting yourself with science.
It tells me you are stupid, and quite possibly irrelevant and pointless.
What else would you like to know? Are you still going to accuse of avoiding your questions?
I choose what to answer – if you dont like it – stiff. Have good cry.
Cheers.
I don’t expect you to answer any questions. You seem to have some psychological condition which prevents you from so doing.
Neither do I expect to find any facts or science in your endless repetitive posts.
Dr Clown, swallow this fact: “CO2 is NOT a heat source. It can NOT warm the planet.”
“Dr Clown, swallow this fact: CO2 is NOT a heat source. It can NOT warm the planet.
Ok, go and try living on a planet with no greenhouse gases.
The average temperature will be about -18 degC (about 33 degC colder than at present).
Your T-shirt should read:
“Tell me again for the 100th time about radiative heat transfer. I don’t understand it!”
Stay on this planet. That will help you to understand.
CO2 is NOT a heat source. It can NOT heat the planet.
Glad to help.
CO2 is NOT a heat source.
No one thinks it is.
Is the coat you wear a “heat source?” Of course not. But you still wear one to keep warm. How does that work, if it’s not a heat source?
DA,
More with the stupid overcoat analogy?
Firemen wear heavy clothes to keep cool.
Overcoats don’t heat corpses or thermometers. Neither does CO2. Only a stupid person would keep flogging the overcoat analogy, because its irrelevant, pointless, and most of all, stupid.
Keep going David. Try a heavier coat, why don’t you?
Cheers.
drno…”Tellingly, Roy Spencer has made only 3 comments (0.45%).
What does that tell you?”
Tells me Roy doesn’t have the time to participate. He does when he can.
Don’t blame the moderator, Doctor. Rather blame those permanently abusing his tolerance.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2018-0-20-deg-c/#comment-290920
La P,
Go ahead. Blame me. Maybe you could even find a reason to make me give a darn! Probably not, as I care little for the opinions of stupid and irrelevant people.
Facts, on the other hand . . .
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
“Maybe you could even find a reason to make me give a darn! Probably not, as I care little for the opinions of stupid and irrelevant people.”
Clearly you “give a darn,” because you spend endless time here replying to every comment, to write only that everyone is “stupid” and you don’t “give a darn.” Your actions belie your claim. Your comments seem to be written by a bot.
DA,
Not about being blamed, David. Just as I said.
Not everyone is stupid – just the stupid ones. Unfortunately some stupid people are delusional – they may even believe they are climate scientists, or that were awarded a Nobel Prize, or any number of other impossible things!
You wouldn’t be quite that stupid, would you?
Cheers.
I agree completely, Jake. After the first few hours when a post is put up, the site invariably devolves into taunts and name calling. Very little science at that point. There’s too much to avoid and less and less reason to come here. A few people post interesting and thoughtful replies, but they’re getting more difficult to fish out.
Please, see the convection over the Indian Ocean.
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2018/anome.3.5.2018.gif
http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00960/vam6odlrtkv8.png
Is woodfortrees down? Won’t load the page for me.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/
Try this:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/
Yes barry, WFT isn’t active now.
If you see an output like
‘Apache/2.4.18 (Ubuntu) Server at http://www.woodfortrees.org Port 80′
then be sure something is plain wrong there.
Thanks, G. I tried the /plot link earlier but no dice. Works now, but the home page is still gekrankt.
From upthread – why UAH have negative anomalies more recently than other data sets. All to do with the baseline.
UAH baseline (zero line) is average global temps from 1981 – 2010.
GISS baseline is average global temps from 1951 – 1980.
We match UAH baseline to GISS by taking the average GISS temp anomalies for the same baseline period as UAH, 1981 – 2010. This gives a result of 0.42233. We don’t need 4 decimal places, but I wanted to be as accurate as possible.
We now shift all UAH anomalies upward by that amount (which lowers the baseline) to match UAH anomalies to the GISS baseline.
Here is the UAH data with the UAH baseline:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6
We see negative anomalies as recently as 2012 (March, to be exact).
Here is the UAH data with the GISS baseline:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/offset:0.42233
The most recent negative anomaly is now in 1993. There are 3 negative anomalies in the 1990s.
Further back in time, the next time we see negative anomalies is in 1985.
The baseline is somewhat arbitrary and makes no difference at all to any trend analysis and confidence intervals.
The original comment was that there had been no negative anomalies since the mid-80s (true for the surface records, not for satellite records). It’s an arbitrary statement, because the baseline is arbitrary.
My original point was that the statement is practically meaningless. There are other ways to express the change that are less arbitrary – such as each decade for the last 50 years (40 in the satellite record) is warmer than the previous. This is the case for all global temp records. Baseline makes no difference to this result either.
barry, you may enjoy this recent study of sea ice.
https://realclimatescience.com/2018/03/scientific-integrity-plummets-to-lowest-level-in-the-last-12000-years/
Would you enjoy an information complementing yours?
journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
Probably not, because you only accept ‘skeptic’ literature, isn’t it?
La P,
And your point is? Still trying to convince people that you can predict the future by intense examination of the entrails of the past? Really?
Sounds pretty stupid to me, but if you can back your fantasy with reproducible scientific experiments, I’ll change my view.
Unfortunately that would be impossible. The future hasnt happened yet, has it?
Oh well, you can always complain.
Cheers.
barry says:
March 6, 2018 at 6:41 PM
Exactly, barry.
We might continue your idea a bit, by displaying the following graphs.
A. Anomalies
1. Salad
https://tinyurl.com/yaosjk2g
2. Less salad
https://tinyurl.com/y9dbvlt5
But the difference between the two representations of the same data you see even better using running means.
B. 36 month running means
1. Salad
https://tinyurl.com/yb5ry4mh
2. Less salad
https://tinyurl.com/ybzbcuv6
Some are so unaware of the problem that they even manage to tell you: ‘Your graph is fudged’.
Simply amazing.
P.S. I guess WFT was down due to monthly time series download.
La P,
And yet more stupid, irrelevant and pointless graphs. Are they even more brightly coloured? Do they only show what happened in the past, or have you seen the future, and written it down?
Stupid. Fortune telling at best – and the climate fortune sellers sell the same vague predictions as any reputable oracle, just with more doom and disaster.
Stupid, just stupid. Keep being gullible – it suits you.
Cheers
LaP, please don’t show MF any more facts.
It is liking thrusting a crucifix in the face of Dracula.
That’s Dracula’s problem I guess :-))
Dr Clown and Pang, a convention of climate clowns.
“Dr Clown and Pang”
Great name for a duo.
Barry wrote:
“Here is the UAH data with the GISS baseline:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/offset:0.42233”
You can’t do that unless you expect surface and LT temperature changes to be the same.
Also, GISS’s baseline is 1951-1980. You can, of course, change that, and maybe that’s where you 0.42 number comes from(?), so it exists over UAH/RSS LT’s interval of existence.
But my original reply still stands.
For the purposes of what’s being discussed baseline matching is necessary.
Method here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2018-0-20-deg-c/#comment-290917
It’s pretty easy to do.
Appell
It seems to me that you still do not quite understand how anomaly shift works within graphs showing multiple time series.
Maybe you should read this:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2018-0-20-deg-c/#comment-290937
And shoud the stuff above not help:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2018-0-20-deg-c/#comment-290750
I certainly understand how to do baseline changes.
You can do it is you’re assuming GISS anomalies = UAH LT anomalies, but I don’t see that that’s justified. Do you?
What a strange question!
1. What do you think when you see this graph?
https://tinyurl.com/ybzbcuv6
2. How would you construct it, if not by having all time series to be compared based on the same climatology?
Wether it is that of UAH, RSS, GISS, Had-CRUT or BEST: that of course doesn’t play any role.
You can do it is youre assuming GISS anomalies = UAH LT anomalies, but I dont see that thats justified. Do you?
I don’t assume they’re the same. They are similar, despite being different measurements of temperature at different altitudes.
For the purposes of discussing why UAH have negative anomalies much more recently than GISS or NOAA, the baseline match provides significant illumination.
Jake,
The word stupid gets thrown around here and many other sites a lot and whilst you may lament this i would like to put that word into context for you and hopefully you will understand why that word is used by so many.
I live in the state of South Australia, on a global scale it is a back water however this state is leading the world in economic suicide simply because when it comes to AGW people are stupid.
Our political leaders will tell you half of our power is generated from renewables (based on name plate capacity) of course this is not the case simply because renewables are so poor at generating power (capacity factor).
We have a state election on March 17 and our current vapid premier has pledged if reelected by 2022 renewables will supply 75% of te states peak demand and 25% will be generated by batteries charged by renewables.
Our peak demand is 3000MW during summer but of course the grand plan is to generate this level of power continuosly so we can sell cheap power to other states and make a lot of coin and in the process power prices in SA will be the cheapest in the world, they are currently the highest in the world.
So lets run the numbers on this pledge shall we?
Due to our highly skewed energy market the renewables companies are gifted $90 a MW as a subsidy so if we were to assume we produce 3000MW 24 x 365 the subsidy to these companies per year would be the eye watering sum of 2.365 billion per year in a state of only 1.5 million thats $1,577 per man, woman and child. Once we pay the subsidy we than have to pay for the power.
Recently it was announced a technilogical breakthrough had occurred, someone in SA had developed a way to burn dead grass to boil water to create steam, the steam would then be used to drive a turbine and produce 15MW of power. This breakthrough was recieved with rapture by a vast majority of South Australians. At the same time a company called Alinta discovered you could substitude the dead grass for gas and via the same process produce 300MW, this far superior break through was vehemently opposed.
Yesterday the Federal government announced it would buy the Snowy river hydro scheme from the states Victoria and New South Wales for the princely sum of 6 billion dollars. This 6 billion dollars will not produce any additional power and so is a massive waste of tax payers money. What it does do however is allow the federal government to waste a further 5 to 10 billion on building a pumped hydro system.
In essence the federal government will spend in excess of 10 billion dollars to build a system which uses power to pump water up a hill and then generate power by releasing it.
We here in Australia are on the precipice of peak stupid, the reason why we find ourselves here is because people in Australia just like some people at this site believe CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming.
The evidence or lack thereof at this site and many others clearly demonstrates these people have no idea how CO2 can achieve this feat but due to these people we are in the situation we are in.
The USA is very lucky to have Trump as their president as he has not been taken in by this belief and is now trying dispite the vehement opposition to rectify the situation.
These people are stupid so i and others will continue to call them stupid because we have given up on trying to use logic and reason to show just how wrong they are.
I hope this clears things up for you Jake.
“The USA is very lucky to have Trump as their president as he has not been taken in by this belief ”
Hilarious. If Trump is against it, it must be right.
For a counter example check this out:
“Michigans largest utility, Consumers Energy, has announced it will stop burning coal by 2040 in an effort to slash greenhouse gas emissions and combat climate change, according to the Associated Press. The company, which services 6.7 million of the states 10 million residents, plans to get 40 percent of its energy from solar and wind power by then, with the rest coming from natural gas and hydropower.
We believe that climate change is real and we can do our part by reducing our greenhouse gas emissions, and we also believe it doesnt have to cost more to do it, the utilitys president and CEO, Patti Poppe, told the AP. We believe were going to be on the right side of history on this issue.
Consumers Energy has been moving away from coal for several years. It closed seven of its 12 coal-fired power plants in 2016, a move that lowered its greenhouse gas emissions 38 percent below 2008 levels.”
(E360 DIGEST
FEBRUARY 19, 2018)
Dr N,
And your point is?
Name someone who doesnt believe the climate changes – you cant! Climate is the average of weather, which changes. Maybe you don’t believe so, but it does.
So, what happens after you and a multitude of equally stupid people stop the climate from changing? You haven’t thought that far ahead, have you? Quickly now, redefine climate or change or weather – that might help – not!
And you probably think you’re not being stupid!
Cheers.
Mike, you never see the point because you are so thick.
Just for you let me spell it out. Watch my lips carefully!
1. Coal power is expensive, polluting, a health problem, a climate problem and finite.
2. Renewables are cheap, clean, healthy, carbon-neutral and infinite.
3. Big business understands this and is investing accordingly.
Only a few dinosaurs fail to understand the way of the future. Fortunately they will soon be extinct.
Dr No,
A climate problem? And that would be what, precisely?
You can’t define the climate. You can’t define the problem
Do you think people are so stupid they will believe your stupidity?
Cheers.
Mike, try and forget climate problem for the moment. Coal is on the way out anyway.
Dr No,
Twist and wriggle, Warmist worm.
Forget the climate problem? Sage advice indeed, even from one as obviously stupid as you.
There is no climate problem. There, forgotten.
Cheers.
“There is no climate problem. There, forgotten.”
Good. You have taken advice from somebody for once in your life.
Now, getting back to the original point (I know this is difficult for you) it is still a fact (sorry to alarm you) that coal is on the way out.
There. That was’nt too hard ? Or was it?
Dr No,
So you looked into the future again. Good for you!
Only a stupid person would make the completely bizarre implication that coal is somehow involved in a nonexistent GHE, raising temperatures by some magical means.
A rational person would notice that burning coal generates heat. Putting a thermometer near burning coal raises the temperature of the thermometer.
An incredibly stupid person might think that the CO2 generated by burning coal was causing the raised temperature! Surely nobody could be that stupid, could they? Claiming that increased CO2 resulting from burning hydrocarbons was making thermometers hotter?
Oh well, take yourself off to an isolated place, and live with your renewable energy sources. I’d like to see you heat or cool your house without having to burn something along the way. No solar, no wind, no hydro – all these require burning lots of stuff to make them. No hot food without fire.
You’re all stupid mouth and no trousers, biting the hand that feeds you! Try practising what you preach, oh stupid one! Can’t and won’t do it, I warrant.
Stupid, just stupid. Too stupid to realise how stupid you are. Good thing, I suspect.
Cheers.
Obviously it was too much to ask Mike to accept the obvious point I was making.
Let me repeat it sslloowwllyy for him:
“Coal is on the way out anyway.”
All his incoherent ranting and raving is, yet again, another example of how simple facts drive some people mad with frustration.
Dr No,
You might believe you have added magical predictive abilities to your mind reading skills. If you do, you are just stupid.
But what the heck –
Overall, 1,600 coal plants are planned or under construction in 62 countries, said Urgewald, which uses data from the Global Coal Plant Tracker portal. The new plants would expand the world’s coal-fired power capacity by 43 per cent.
Who to believe, oh stupid one? For example, the Chinese Government, or you? Hmmmm, let me think . . . not you.
Carry on dreaming, but let me know when you figure out how not burning coal will prevent the climate from changing. If you’re stupid enough to believe that the climate can be prevented from changing, you’d probably be stupid enough to believe that Gavin Schmidt is a climate scientist, or that Michael Mann is a Nobel laureate!
Cheers.
Dr. Clown, did you know that CO2 can NOT warm the planet?
But… g*e*r*a*n ! What’s the matter with you?
Everybody knows that ‘CO2 can NOT warm the planet’.
It can prevent its cooling.
That’s at least 100 % different, isn’t it?
How does CO2 “prevent cooling”?
La P,
Thats the stupid pseudo scientific word twisting isnt it?
Reduction in the rate of cooling is really heating! Totally stupid, of course.
CO2 heats nothing. Never has, never will. No heat accumulation. No GHE. No heating.
Cheers.
“How does CO2 prevent cooling?
Duh!
How does wearing a coat in winter prevent you freezing?
Dr No,
Why do firemen wear really heavy clothing to prevent them getting too hot? Why are refrigerators insulated to keep heat out? Why does an overcoat not heat a corpse?
You are just stupid. Choose a more appropriate analogy if you are too ignorant to address the science involved.
Cheers.
M (Count Dracula), get back in your coffin!
Insulation (the coat) keeps you warm because it inhibits heat loss by:
conduction
evaporation and
radiation
from your skin.
CO2 and other greenhouse gases keep us warmer because they inhibit heat loss via radiation from the surface.
Even my grand-son understands this basic principle.
Dr No,
Unfortunately, the temperature only seems to rise in sunlight. And at night, the temperature drops.
In addition, the places with the least GHGs in the atmosphere are both the hottest and the coldest.
Not only that, you’re still stupid – day or night, with or without insulation.
Cheers.
M,
you are an absolute champion at diversion!
g*e*r*a*n says:
March 6, 2018 at 8:32 PM
How does CO2 prevent cooling?
*
You just need to read Roy Spencer’s meaning concerning that. You’ll find the stuff more than once on this site.
La P,
Would anyone except a stupid person believe that all the CO2 since the Earths creation failed to stop the Earth cooling for four and a half billion years, but gained this magical power in the last few years?
If you cant propose a change in physics supporting a sudden change in CO2 properties in the last few years, then you are obviously stupid.
No GHE. The laws of physics relating to CO2,havent changed recently. You are obviously stupid. Any questions?
Cheers.
Pang, that just means you do not have any answer. You just “believe” CO2 prevents cooling. You have NO “proof” of you pseudoscience.
It’s fun to watch.
Mike,
Again with the ‘No GHE’? And people who believe in it must be ‘stupid’.
Im pretty sure we already established that GHE is essential to make weather prediction models work. GHE exists and is tested every day.
And you had no serious rebuttal.
According to you, since meterologists believe in and use GHE, they must be stupid. And yet somehow they continue to accurately predict the weather.
Nate,
There is no GHE. If you find a testable GHE hypothesis, you will be showered with honors. Dont hold your breath.
As to meteorologists, Im guessing you want me to say that Dr Spencer is stupid. I wont of course.
Meteorogists predict the weather, generally, no better or worse than a naive persistence forecast, using past history and a straight stick and a piece of charcoal. A 12 year old (or even yourself if youre not too stupid), can do this with about 5 minutes instruction.
Generally about 85% accurate – in my location, naive maximum temperature prediction for the following day within one standard deviation was in excess of 95% over a 365 day year, working backwards from the day I did the calculation.
I live in the tropics by the sea, so your results may more closely approach the 85% figure I mentioned.
Cheers.
Mike,
“Meteorogists predict the weather, generally, no better or worse than a naive persistence forecast, using past history and a straight stick and a piece of charcoal. ”
So Mike, whatever credibility you had as an honest skeptic dealing in the world of facts is reduced to zero.
Whatever future statements you make, Mike, can be immediately categorized as fake news, trash, not based in reality.
Weather prediction improvements for Dummies:
https://www.weather5280.com/blog/2014/09/24/the-abc-of-numerical-weather-prediction/
‘I live in the tropics by the sea’
So weather is utterly repetitive. Except occasionally:
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/verification/verify5.shtml
Typical of the warmbots that lurk this site.
Firstly as an Australian i dont give a toss about Trump or US politics i just used him as an example of how stupid we are.
As i said to Jake no one can provide explicit detail to support the follwing from your comment:
We believe that climate change is real and we can do our part by reducing our greenhouse gas emissions
Notice the use of the word “BELIEVE” Dr No?
For you to get 40% of your power from renewables you will need to build something which has a name plate capacity of 120% of your total demand, shen your power bills go through the roof now you know why. Of course renewables dont turn a profit so you will need to provide some sort on incentive to for them so a subsidy will do.
Welcome to the third world and you have your stupidity to thank
Dum-dum,
see my comment above.
It is the difference between a global average temperature of -18degC and +15degC.
C,
That comment was for dum-dum above.
As for your comment:
“Welcome to the third world and you have your stupidity to thank”
Go and say that to big business. They are far from stupid when it comes to money and will laugh in your face.
Dr No,
Complete and absolute nonsense. The core is molten, maybe 5500 K, or more.
Outer space is maybe 4 K.
The surface is somewhere between these. Without the Sun, are you stupid enough to believe the surface would be 4 K?
You have no clue, have you? Just gullibility liberally spiced with stupidity. Learn some real physics, not the nonsense you apparently believe.
Cheers.
“Without the Sun, are you stupid enough to believe the surface would be 4 K?
You have no clue, have you?”
Now, now, don’t expect me to answer your foolish questions for you. You work it out and get back to me when you have an answer.
“The surface is somewhere between these. Without the Sun, are you stupid enough to believe the surface would be 4 K?”
Certainly it will be colder than Antarctica in winter where there is no sun for 6 months ie < -90C.
Versus 40C in tropics.
Id say having sun in the tropics makes the 130 C difference.
Without the Sun the Earth would careen off into space, which has a blackbody temperature of 2.7 K. The Earth would be frozen at the surface…. Ice is a poor absorber of microwaves, but I haven’t found that albedo.
But there’s still the internal heat from the Earth, which has a average flux of 0.086 W/m2. That would lead to a blackbody temperature of 35 K, before albedo effects.
“A Pail of Air” by Fritz Leiber is an interesting short story about a rogue Earth drifting through space.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Pail_of_Air
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/51461
DA,
That’s about what I get. Add the notional input from the Sun, about 255 K, and and the result is around 290 K.
No need for a GHE. Just bit of physics, and a little common sense. Thank you David.
People don’t seem to realise that you need less energy to raise a body to a temperature of 288 K if you start with one at 35 K or so.
Once again, many thanks. I’ve mentioned this before, but who knows? Maybe the stupid ones will pay more attention to you.
Cheers.
Nope. Temperatures of black bodies dont add linearly.
“35K” “Thats about what I get. Add the notional input from the Sun, about 255 K, and and the result is around 290 K.
No need for a GHE. Just bit of physics, and a little common sense. Thank you David.”
OMG, when Mike actually tries to talk about science, the depth of his ignorance is revealed.
“Worldwide investments in renewable technologies amounted to more than US$286 billion in 2015, with countries like China and the United States heavily investing in wind, hydro, solar and biofuels. Globally, there are an estimated 7.7 million jobs associated with the renewable energy industries, with solar photovoltaics being the largest renewable employer. As of 2015 worldwide, more than half of all new electricity capacity installed was renewable.”
Gee – the whole world must be stupid!
Go and whinge in the corner with Mike.
Dr No,
The whole world isn’t stupid. Just those who believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter. Stupidity.
Even more stupid are the people who believe that a reduction in the rate of cooling is heating, that is, an increase in temperature! How stupid is that?
Cheers.
“How stupid is that?”
Nobody is answering your foolish questions.
Dr Clown, surely you realize you’re not making any sense.
(This is going to be a great year in climate comedy!)
g, please don’t tell me I have to explain everything to you like I do with Mike.
I think I will have to put you both into the remedial class.
On second thoughts, why don’t both of you take another class – such as T-shirt making?
Dr No,
Not only are you stupid, you are also suffering from delusions of grandeur.
You have no power over anyone. I know you would like to assist others to administer electric shocks to people who disagree with your stupidity based pseudo science, but alas, you would need to leave your fantasy for the real world.
Keep on. I understand.
Cheers.
g,
The stupid ones have put a great deal of effort into their act.
They have practised the swerve, the avoid, the divert, the deflect, and many other moves, They haven’t quite got the hang of the lateral arabesque, the premier fact avoidance manoeuvre, and maybe they never will.
They have a natural gift for comedy, as you point out. We’ll all be rolling in the aisles as they bumble about communing with dead trees, predicting the future by looking at colourful pictures, all the while chanting the sacred Manntras as they rush around the theatre pretending to look for Trenberth’s missing heat – It’s behind you! It’s over there! It’s hiding in the ocean!
Oh how we laughed!
Tickets are free – nobody has to pay to enjoy the farce.
Cheers.
M., great post! I really enjoyed that.
I think g* will agree.
Dr No,
I accept plaudits from anyone.
By the way, you said *I think*. Are you sure? I haven’t seen much to support your assertion. Can you provide some supporting evidence?
Cheers.
Touche !
Ich wrde sogar sagen: touch!
Better to take the right window’s content:
Ich würde sogar sagen: touché!
Crakar wrote:
“Of course renewables dont turn a profit so you will need to provide some sort on incentive to for them so a subsidy will do.”
The first step is to take away favorable tax treatment given to fossil fuels (esp coal, in the US), and take away the huge subsidies given to fossil fuels. They aren’t charged for the damage (to health and environment) done by their waste product (traditional pollution and CO2). A revenue neutral carbon tax could fix that.
DA,
The first step is to realise that nobody with any real power is likely to take any notice of you, otherwise they would have by now.
Carry on.
Cheers.
The forecast of ozone in the lower stratosphere indicates a large cooling in the east of the US. The coldest will be where there is the most ozone.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00960/aqtirjq2tzb7.png
“In satellite- and surface-based radiation measurements have
shown that the lower troposphere emits 42-44% more radiation
towards the surface (i.e. 341-346 W m-2) than the net shortwave flux
delivered to the Earth-atmosphere system by the Sun (i.e. 240 W m-2).
In other words, the lower troposphere contains significantly more
kinetic energy than expected from solar heating alone. A similar but more extreme
situation is observed on Venus as well, where the atmospheric downwelling
LW radiation near the surface (>15,000 W m-2) exceeds the
total absorbed solar flux (65150 W m-2) by a factor of 100 or more.
The radiative greenhouse theory cannot explain this apparent paradox
considering the fact that infrared-absorbing gases such as CO2
, water vapor and methane only re-radiate available LW emissions and do not
constitute significant heat storage or a net source of additional energy to
the system. This raises a fundamental question about the origin of the
observed energy surplus in the lower troposphere of terrestrial planets
with respect to the solar input.”
ren,
Can’t be bothered looking up the source, but it is complete nonsense, in any case. Anybody stupid enough to talk about short wave flux and kinetic energy and in the same sentence is just stupid.
Talk of a radiative greenhouse theory is completely meaningless, as no greenhouse theory exists!
Dimwitted stupidity. Whoever the author is, he are demonstrating the triumph of faith over fact – religious fervour dressed up as science.
I can only assume you posted this as an example of the garbage published as serious science.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn this article shows that the assumptions of the AGW are false from the outset.
The SB law is also routinely employed to estimating the mean temperatures of airless bodies. We demonstrate that this formula as applied to spherical objects is mathematically incorrect owing to Hlders inequality between integrals and leads to biased results such as a significant underestimation of Earths ATE. We derive a new expression for the mean physical temperature of airless bodies based on an analytic integration of the SB law over a sphere that accounts for effects of regolith heat storage and cosmic background radiation on nighttime temperatures. Upon verifying our model against Moon surface temperature data provided by the NASA Diviner Lunar Radiometer Experiment, we propose it as a new analytic standard for evaluating the thermal environment of airless bodies. Physical evidence is presented that Earths ATE should be assessed against the temperature of an equivalent airless body such as the Moon rather than a hypothetical atmosphere devoid of greenhouse gases. Employing the new temperature formula we show that Earths total ATE is ~90 K, not 33 K, and that ATE = GE + TE, where GE is the thermal effect of greenhouse gases, while TE > 15 K is a thermodynamic enhancement independent of the atmospheric infrared back radiation. It is concluded that the contribution of greenhouse gases to Earths ATE defined as GE = ATE TE might be greater than 33 K, but will remain uncertain until the strength of the hereto identified TE is fully quantified by future research.
https://springerplus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2193-1801-3-723
Since years I can’t stop laughing when I see this article:
On the average temperature of airless spherical bodies and the magnitude of Earths atmospheric thermal effect
Den Volokin and Lark ReLlez
In fact, the authors are named Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller.
See under
https://retractionwatch.com/2016/09/13/u-s-govt-researchers-withdraw-climate-paper-after-using-pseudonyms/
The two guys are so brazen that they even published an article under their real name with in it a reference to their nickname publication!
*
Imagine what would happen if Thomas Karl and Gavin Schmidt would produce together a paper signed with such stoopid nicknames like
Mathos Kral and Vigan Dmitsch
The whole climate & weather ‘skeptic’ community would roar as loud as ever, from Goddard over chiefio till Gosselin.
But Nikolov and Zeller are… ‘skeptic’s.
Dann ist des ja net so schlimm, gell?
La P,
I had a good laugh at the the time. One has to wonder at the egregious stupidity. Stupid is stupid. Im non-discriminatory when it comes to stupidity.
Stupid paper, really stupid authors. if they had presented their stupidity here, I might have pointed out one or two things they got wrong.
Facts are facts, fantasy is fantasy.
Cheers.
Aha. Sometimes we manage to agree. Why not?
Maybe you would ‘appreciate’ the following publication in a similar way?
Using Earths Moon as a Testbed for Quantifying the Effect of the Terrestrial Atmosphere
by Gerhard Kramm, Ralph Dlugi, Nicole Mölders
https://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=78836#ref37%20
A spicy point is that for the three, Moon’s tidal locking spin is an evidence since they publish :-))
La P,
There are many nonsense papers published, even in reputable journals. Even in spite of vigorous efforts by authors and publishers to avoid it, thousands of papers every year year are retracted. Plagiarism, falsification, and just plain boneheaded stupidity, are some of the main reasons.
Peer reviewers are obviously just as stupid as the authors, to say nothing of editorial boards.
However, I cannot make head or tail of your last sentence. What is a *spicy point*? What is *an evidence since they publish*? What is *Moons tidal locking spin*?
No use calling me stupid – you are writing gibberish. Get a competent fluent English speaker to proof read your comment, if you wish it to be understood.
Cheers.
Please send your claims to Google’s translator crew.
And for many Europeans not belonging to the Anglosaxon community, ‘spicy’ means ‘funny’.
La Pangolina unfortunately you can not smash this theory. If you talk about radiation, it’s clear to compare the temperature to the planet without the atmosphere. Then you can see how much energy the atmosphere adds.
La P,
I send nothing anywhere at your demand.
You chose to use what you consider incompetent translation services, so dont blame me. Not my problem. Do better next time, if you can.
Funny doesnt mean spicy, and spicy might mean entertaining, particularly in a slightly indecent fashion, in a particular context.
Your definitions are irrelevant and pointless. Use them for the many Europeans you claim understand them, if you wish. Good luck with that.
Cheers.
It is also obvious that atmospheric gases do not accumulate heat as evidenced by the lowest temperature in the tropopause.
Therefore, the troposphere should be treated as a whole, where the heat exchange takes place in a short time.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_EQ_2016.png
ren says:
March 7, 2018 at 7:33 AM
‘La Pangolina unfortunately you can not smash this theory. ‘
*
Please, ren: ask Flynn and g*e*r**a*n!
I didn’t smash it.
For that to do, you need a lot of math background to discover where Kramm & al. are wrong.
The paper is saying that the GHE is probably stronger than the 33K usually attributed.
It is concluded that the contribution of greenhouse gases to Earths ATE defined as GE = ATE TE might be greater than 33 K
Paper is saying the opposite of what you think it does, ren.
Pang, this silly “paper” has been debunked before. You can NOT compare the Earth to the Moon. The Moon experiences temperatures MUCH hotter and MUCH colder than Earth. What that proves is how well Earth’s systems (oceans, atmosphere, etc.) can maintain a suitable temperature range.
You just can’t understand. Like many, you are unable to process facts and logic. Learn the definition of “rotating on its axis” and “orbiting”. Then, watch a toy train on a circular track. If you then believe the train is “rotating on its axis”, you can NOT think logically. Your brain does not work.
You need to get your brain working, before trying to understand science. Otherwise, you’re just a clown.
g*e*r*a*n says:
March 7, 2018 at 8:43 AM
‘Pang, this silly “paper” has been debunked before.’
*
You are the one who just cant understand.
1. Didn’t you see the ironic quotes around ‘appreciate’ in my comment to Flynn?
If you had, you certainly wouldn’t have written such a redundant nonsense.
I don’t need you to discover which paper is silly and which isn’t. Because I have, as opposed to you, an own meaning.
Your meaning is that of Goddard & Co.
*
2. And let me tell you above all that I do not care at all if this poor Moon is spinning or not!
I just wanted to put a hint on the fact that manifestly there are two kinds of pseudoskeptics:
– those who believe the moon rotates on its axis;
– those who don’t (like you).
If you were a bit more intelligent, you would have discovered that by your own, and again… you certainly wouldn’t have written such a redundant nonsense.
Poor g*e*r*a*n…
Yes pang, just keep making up your own definitions of who understands and who doesn’t.
It’s fun to watch.
G* says: “Learn the definition of rotating on its axis and orbiting.”
Why don’t you teach us? Give us a simple, clear, unambiguous definition of each of these terms as you understand them.
Tim, the easiest way to understand “orbiting” is to consider a race car on a circular path. The race car is always moving in the direction perpendicular to the center of the track (tangent). It is NOT “rotating on its axis”. If you want to delve deeper, study Kepler’s law of planetary motion. Gravity does NOT cause “rotating on its axis”.
The easiest way to understand “rotating on its axis” is here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_around_a_fixed_axis
An object can either be “orbiting”, or “rotating on its axis”, or both. The Moon, of course, is only “orbiting”.
binny…”I just wanted to put a hint on the fact that manifestly there are two kinds of pseudoskeptics:
those who believe the moon rotates on its axis;
those who dont (like you)”.
*****
A pseudoskeptic would, of necessity, be a false skeptic. An imposter. Someone who believes and pretends to be a skeptic.
You go on to compare apples and oranges, as in those who believe (pseudo-skeptics), with those who do not (skeptics).
What is your point? The paper you linked to is more of the nonsense of trying to calculate the mythical 33C difference between a planet with an atmosphere and one without. This paper proposes a plant with no atmosphere yet having oceans.
I should have stopped reading when they stated: “Since the angular velocity of Moons rotation is 27.4 times slower than that of the Earth…”. Being a glutton for punishment I read on, trying to get at what they were talking about. Even after skimming to the end and reading their conclusions, I still don’t get the point of their paper.
The paper is mathematical horsebleep as are all calculations of the the planet’s so-called heat budget. They managed to included arguments from G&T without making a clear G&T were trying to disprove that inane thought experiment.
The thought experiments are not required, Earth’s gravity field explains the warming adequately.
tim…”Why dont you teach us? Give us a simple, clear, unambiguous definition of each of these terms as you understand them”.
The explanations have been offered several times. Rotating about a local axis means turning about a central point, or centre of gravity, with a definite angular momentum. The Moon lacks that local angular momentum.
Orbiting, as used in astronomy, means a body traveling in a straight line with momentum being forced into an orbital path by the gravitational force of the body around which it is orbiting. The orbit is the resultant path.
Of course, the alarmists here have been offering all forms of illusions peculiar to the human mind such as undefined reference frames and other perspectives in an attempt to remove egg from their faces after challenging g*r and being wrong.
G, I I didn’t ask for the “easiest”. I asked for a definition. Let me give a brief example of where your thinking fails.
First, I hope we can agree that only a net torque can change the angular velocity of an object — just like only a net force can change the liner velocity.
Inside your “race car” imagine a frictionless spindle mounted vertically — like the pivot of a compass for example. On this spindle is a heavy “arrow” that points to the front of the car.
The car is driving due north at a steady speed. The arrow is pointing north as well. The car is approaching a circular track along a tangent — sort of like “ρ”
* The car is not orbiting.
* The car is not rotating.
* The arrow is not orbiting.
* The arrow is not rotating.
(With me so far? If not what do you object to?)
The car reaches the circular path and starts to turn to the the right, continuing to cruise at steady speed.
* The car is ‘orbiting’ clockwise around the center of the track
* The arrow is ‘orbiting’ clockwise around the center of the track in the same path as the car.
* The arrow is not rotating. We know this because 1) there has been no net torque on the arrow and 2) it was not rotating initially. It continues to point north as the car drives in a circle.
* The car IS rotating. We know this because it is turning relative to the non-rotating arrow.
“The Moon lacks that local angular momentum.”
Why would you say this? Go into any physic department and ask any physics professor. Or google “is the moon rotating?” and point me to even one legitimate looking site that says it is not rotating. Or explain to me how the initially non-rotating arrow in my example has angular momentum but would have no angular momentum if I gave it a push to turn to keep pace with the turning of the car.
Tim, you got is mostly right until your very last sentence. The race car is NOT “rotating on its axis”. The motion is “orbiting”.
Next attempted “spin”, please.
“Tim, you got is mostly right until your very last sentence.”
So you agree with the earlier statements when I said the arrow is not rotating (pointing continuously north). But you also say the car is not rotating. Yet clearly the two are rotating relative to each other. How does that work???
Tim, now you’re playing “who said what”. That’s just more “spin”.
You can’t get away from the simple example. You can’t think for yourself. Like many, you claim the race car is “rotating on its axis”, completely trying to avoid the reality that it is orbiting. You still don’t understand the difference between “orbiting” and “rotating on its axis”.
It’s fun to watch.
“You still dont understand the difference between orbiting and rotating on its axis.”
And you still can’t define what you mean by “rotating” and “orbiting” in any consistent way. As soon as we try, you have to retreat from specific statements and resort to vague appeals to your own intuition. You can’t even answer simple questions.
Is the arrow rotating while pointing due north in a car that is driving due north? YES or NO?
Is the arrow rotating while continuing to point due north in a car that is driving in a circle? YES or NO?
Tim asks: “Is the arrow rotating while pointing due north in a car that is driving due north? YES or NO?”
g answers: YES
Tim asks: “Is the arrow rotating while continuing to point due north in a car that is driving in a circle? YES or NO?”
g answers: The correct answer depends on multiple assumptions. Consequently the question reveals your lack of understanding of simple orbital motions, or your need to confuse the issue, or both.
Now, Tim, a question for you: As you claim a race car is “rotating on its axis”, is it also “orbiting”. That is, are there TWO different, independent motions occurring simultaneously?
YES or NO?
Gordon,
The paper you linked to is more of the nonsense of trying to calculate the mythical 33C difference between a planet with an atmosphere and one without.
ren was the one who linked the paper. La P thinks it is laughable.
“That is, are there TWO different, independent motions occurring simultaneously?”
Yes.
Here — think about this.
There is a small frictionless lazy-susan sitting near the edge of a larger turntable. Both are not rotating relative to some reference frame based on distant galaxies. For convenience, there is an arrow painted on the lazy susan that happens to be pointing north.
* I can give the lazy susan a torque and start it rotating (with the turntable still not rotating)
* I can give the turntable a torque and start it rotating (with the lazy susan still not rotating — the arrow will continue to point north).
These are two different, independent rotations; two different, independent motions.
* I can give BOTH the arrow and the turntable pushes and start them both rotating. If I do it just right, the two independent rotations could have the the same angular velocity, in which case the arrow could always face toward the center of the turntable. But only because the two independent motions happen to be in sync.
Tim, as you now claim that the race car has both motions, suppose it stops on the track. Do both motions stop? Then, they are NOT independent are they?
See how you trap yourself?
The race car only has ONE motion. When it stops, that ONE motion stops. It is NOT rotating on its axis. The Earth has both motions. The Moon only has ONE–orbiting.
Also, your statement: “I can give BOTH the arrow and the turntable pushes and start them both rotating. If I do it just right, the two independent rotations could have the the same angular velocity, in which case the arrow could always face toward the center of the turntable. But only because the two independent motions happen to be in sync.”
is IMPOSSIBLE, unless the “rotating on its axis” angular velocity was ZERO!
See how you trap yourself?
Tim,
As a matter of curiosity, what happens if you point your lazy Susan arrow towards the centre of the larger table?
Or maybe just save the trouble and paint an arrow on the larger table, pitting towards the centre.
Now you would have to say the arrow has rotated on its axis, I suppose. Pointless and irrelevant, but maybe allowing accusations of stupidity in all directions – a version of spin-the-bottle for AGW climate change supporters.
How does this relate to the non-existent GHE?
Cheers.
Its been interesting G, but we are past the point of any productive discussion. Clearly you know that your opinions don’t agree with any standard definitions of “rotation”. You cannot find any source that supports you.
Without being able to sit down together and agree on things one step at a time, there is really no hope. So I will leave you (and the 2 or 3 people who seem to share your views) to savor your views while entire scientific community has come to a different conclusion.
I was thinking about g*s toy train. Most of us agree that it performs an orbiting motion, right?
But what if the train was really long, and you could attach the car at the front to the caboose?
Hook the front to the back…….is the train still be performing an orbit as it circles the track?
Let me fix the grammar:
Hook the front to the back…….is the train still performing an orbit as it circles the track?
Tim’s pseudoscience blows up in his face, AGAIN. He presented, as “proof”, an example that is clearly impossible. When I pointed it out, he chose to cut his losses and flee.
It’s fun to watch.
G*
When Tim used the phrase “independent motions” to describe orbit and rotation, he was trying to say the two motions are DIFFERENT, even when they occur at the same time.