Home/BlogUPDATE: Changed emphasis from Northern Hemisphere extratropics to entire Northern Hemisphere (h/t John Christy)
In April, 2020, the Northern Hemisphere experienced its 2nd largest 2-month drop in temperature in the 497-month satellite record.
The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for April, 2020 was +0.38 deg. C, down from the March, 2020 value of +0.48 deg. C.
The Northern Hemisphere temperature anomaly fell from +0.96 deg. C to 0.43 deg. C from February to April, a 0.53 deg. C drop which is the 2nd largest 2-month drop in the 497-month satellite record. The largest 2-month drop was -0.69 deg. C from December 1987 to February 1988.
The linear warming trend since January, 1979 has now increased to +0.14 C/decade (but remains statistically unchanged at +0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land).
Various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 16 months are:
YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPIC USA48 ARCTIC AUST 2019 01 +0.38 +0.35 +0.41 +0.36 +0.53 -0.15 +1.15 2019 02 +0.37 +0.47 +0.28 +0.43 -0.02 +1.04 +0.06 2019 03 +0.35 +0.44 +0.25 +0.41 -0.55 +0.97 +0.59 2019 04 +0.44 +0.38 +0.51 +0.54 +0.49 +0.92 +0.91 2019 05 +0.32 +0.29 +0.35 +0.40 -0.61 +0.98 +0.39 2019 06 +0.47 +0.42 +0.52 +0.64 -0.64 +0.91 +0.35 2019 07 +0.38 +0.33 +0.44 +0.45 +0.10 +0.33 +0.87 2019 08 +0.39 +0.38 +0.39 +0.42 +0.17 +0.44 +0.24 2019 09 +0.62 +0.64 +0.59 +0.60 +1.14 +0.75 +0.57 2019 10 +0.46 +0.64 +0.28 +0.31 -0.03 +0.99 +0.50 2019 11 +0.55 +0.56 +0.54 +0.55 +0.21 +0.56 +0.38 2019 12 +0.56 +0.61 +0.50 +0.58 +0.92 +0.66 +0.94 2020 01 +0.57 +0.60 +0.53 +0.62 +0.73 +0.12 +0.66 2020 02 +0.76 +0.96 +0.55 +0.76 +0.38 +0.02 +0.30 2020 03 +0.48 +0.61 +0.34 +0.63 +1.09 -0.72 +0.17 2020 04 +0.38 +0.43 +0.34 +0.45 -0.59 +1.03 +0.97
The UAH LT global gridpoint anomaly image for April, 2020 should be available within the next week here.
The global and regional monthly anomalies for the various atmospheric layers we monitor should be available in the next few days at the following locations:
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
It appears the arctic air was released last month, mixing well with the tropics. This indicates an increase in meridional jet stream flow in the northern hemisphere. Confirmed by the negative departure in the USA 48 region. Looking forward to the details / data.
Its always funny when people try to imitate phrases without understanding them.
If you want more ask him how “Jupiter and Saturn cause the sun to move away”.
Svante,
The sun must move relative to Jupiter and Saturn. You toy with me for no apparent reason as this is a known fact that this is happening. Here is a cool place where you can see that for yourself.
http://www.orbitsimulator.com/gravity/articles/ssbarycenter.html
Earth is twelve times faster than Jupiter around the Sun,
and thirty times faster than Saturn.
So the distance difference is averaged out over the year.
Svante,
I understand what you are saying… what you have missed is the significance of the polar night, and the albedo of the north pole verses the south. The south is much better at reflecting energy back into space. When you position Jupiter and Saturn so that a LITTLE bit of extra energy goes to the south pole instead of the north pole, it is enough to tip the earth from one equilibrium energy state into another. It starts off as tiny energy losses each year, but once the cycle gets going it snow balls. More snow in the arctic causes more snow and ice in the arctic and so on. Where the lower equilibrium point is reached will depend on many factors including to a small degree man made influences.
And yet Earth orbits the Sun-Earth barycenter.
With Jupiter at 5.2 AU and Earth at 1 AU, Jupiter pulls the
Sun-Earth pair in the same general direction.
Even more true for Saturn at 9.6 AU.
I agree that the climate is sensitive due to feed backs.
Svante,
The sun moves very little due to the earth. Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune all move it more. Actually, Jupiter moves it more than the earth by more than 3 orders of magnitude. Anyways, the earth works WITH Jupiter and Saturn to move the sun away. The sun must move away to balance the planets when they are all bunched on 1 side… otherwise the orbits would not be stable. Take a look at where all the planets will be late June and please think about it. I do not think it works how you are thinking where the earth is tethered to the sun somehow. I do not believe gravity works that way. Everything is in a constant free fall towards the sun, and the orbit of Jupiter and Saturn change the shape of every other orbit.
Scott R says:
“I do not believe gravity works that way.”
Jupiter makes the Sun wobble compared to the background stars,
but Earth wobbles with it so it has little influence on the Sun-Earth pair.
Jupiters effect on Earth is in delta distance between the two. Ephemeris calculations show that the effect is small.
“I do not believe gravity works that way.”
Can’t find any input field for belief here:
https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?horizons
It’s the same thing with the Earth-Moon wobble. The Earth-Moon system causes the Earth to wobble around the barycenter. But the positioning of satellites, space shuttle, space station, etc. do not bob in and out because of that wobble. There is no difference in the amount of Earth-shine our satellites receive due to this wobble.
Svante,
I agree with you that the Jupiter / Earth direct gravity interaction is small. Let’s forget about all the other planets for a moment and focus on Jupiter, sun and earth. Let’s say everything else went away for the purposes of this discussion and say that Jupiter’s orbit is a perfect circle. When you do that, you have a simple barycenter movement with Jupiter and the sun, where the sun will always move away from Jupiter is it completes it’s orbit. So you are telling me this 1 motion makes no difference to the earth sun distance. Then on top of that Jupiter’s movement between perihelion and aphelion makes no difference, and Saturn makes no difference. etc etc etc I can’t believe it, sorry.
If you want to prove it to me, start with the simple example I gave you with Jupiter with a perfectly circular orbit and explain how that would work.
“When you position Jupiter and Saturn so that a LITTLE bit of extra energy goes to the south pole instead of the north pole, it is enough to tip the earth from one equilibrium energy state into another”
Is this an astrology thing, Scott?
Because it doesnt make sense from the physics POV.
BDGWX explained it nicely.
Scott R says:
You would be right if Earth rotated around the Sun-Jupiter barycenter. It does not, it rotates around the Sun-Earth barycenter. Your idea would have merit if Earth rotated around both Jupiter and the Sun.
Contrary to your school book, the orbits of Jupiter and Earth are not concentric.
Earth’s aphelion/perihelion is +/- 0.02 AU due to eccentricity. The residual is 0.0000 AU.
Scott R says:
Here’s your circular orbit on the left, and the corrected orbit on the right:
https://tinyurl.com/yc78qtqk
Here is the pubpeer thread where the experts were trying to explain to Zharkova how orbital mechanics work.
https://pubpeer.com/publications/3418816F1BA55AFB7A2E6A44847C24
bdgwx I think we all agree that the Milankovitch cycles cause the orbit of the earth to change. IF it was true that Jupiter had no effect on the earth’s orbit similar to the moon / earth / satellite example you gave, why would the earth’s orbit ever change? We also know that satellites do not stay in orbit forever by the way. In fact, our climate data must be adjusted for that. The Milankovitch cycle is caused by the sum of small perturbations over a long period of time. Like it or not, these small perturbations are making a difference to the temperatures of the oceans. It isn’t a steady march in one direction. There are cycles smaller than 100,000 years related to the earths eccentricity. Can you help me get to the bottom of this? I understand that the amplitude of the change in earth / sun distance is small.
bdgwx says: ‘It’s the same thing with the Earth-Moon wobble. The Earth-Moon system causes the Earth to wobble around the barycenter. But the positioning of satellites, space shuttle, space station, etc. do not bob in and out because of that wobble. There is no difference in the amount of Earth-shine our satellites receive due to this wobble.’
—————————–
Right bdgwx! All it does is lift the oceans several feet. Think of what it does to the atmosphere. Of course the moon has no effect on climate because it goes around monthly.
The ignorant always points instantly to earth-shine because they know it isn’t a great deal and they pretend like they can’t think of anything else that might be influenced by such powerful forces. Or perhaps they are just too stupid to think period.
Just a 1% difference in clouds, smaller than we can even measure would have sufficient effect to change climate we have observed. But that simply isn’t a politically correct thought, slap my hand as punishment.
And of course we know the sun has cycles roughly in time with Jupiter’s orbit. But thats not a politically correct thought either is it bdwgx?
In my view we have a lot to learn about radiant heat and the frequencies in which it is emitted. Does relatively low frequency light actually warm something with a higher frequency? We understand wattage of various frequencies but is this only potential to heat or is it actually usable watts?
Frequency of sound is simply canceled from opposing frequencies and forms the basis of noise cancelling headsets and is a sound engineers challenge of wiring and placing speakers.
If you shine some low frequency light back at the surface you may cancel out low frequency light emitting from the surface and in compensation the source of the low frequency light shines an equal amount toward space. At that point it was required to completely invent a new effect – a gaseous insulating blanket.
I am not saying it doesn’t work. In fact I am pretty sure it works for at least one layer. I am merely saying science has a ways to go. I am all ears on what I might have missed already.
bill,
The ocean is not in free orbit around the Earth. It is affected by the tidal influence of Moon in a different way. It has nothing to do with the Earth-Sun distance or the Earth-satellite distance.
Regarding my Earth-shine comment…the Sun-shine that the Sun’s satellites receive is not affected by the Sun-Jupiter barycenter wobble just as the Earth-shine that the Earth’s satellites receive is not affected by the Earth-Moon barycenter wobble.
Clouds are a topic of ongoing and intense research in the scientific community. Their radiative forcing effect is considered. They are not ignored in any way political or otherwise. This has nothing to do with the Earth-Sun distance though.
Solar cycles are a topic of ongoing and intense research in the scientific community. Their radiative forcing effect is considered. They are not ignored in any way political or otherwise. Again…this has nothing to do with the Earth-;sun distance though.
And yes solar cycles are believed to be influenced by planetary orbits. Again…this has nothing to do with the Earth-Sun distance though.
Yes. We are still learning about the warming effects of radiation. Our knowledge on the topic is not perfect nor will it ever be. But it’s also not zero either and the level of knowledge is always increasing. Again…this has nothing to do with the Earth-Sun distance though.
bdgwx,
Thanks for the link to that discussion. A very fascinating (at least to me) argument there. Perhaps we are all wrong and live in an electric universe which explains why the earth bonds to the sun’s barycenter movement and Jupiter does not. (haha?) I wonder if they discussed dark matter at all and the orbit of stars around the galactic center. I’ll have to keep reading / learning. That is what this is all about.
Scott,
Yes. We can definitely agree on Milankovitch cycles. However these cycles do not change the amount of radiation Earth receives. Instead they change the distribution of that radiation.
Yes. We can definitely agree that Jupiter perturbs Earth’s orbit. However, these perturbation has have no residual effect on the amount radiation Earth receives when examined over several orbital periods.
What I and experts disagree with Zharkova over is the claim that the Sun-Jupiter barycenter wobble affects the amount of radiation Earth receives. It has no affect because the Earth-Sun distance does not change because of solar inertial movement.
“The ignorant always..” Lots of undeserved ad homs for demonstrably smart and infinitely tolerant BDGWX in there, Bill.
Point?
“In my view we have a lot to learn about radiant heat…”
But none of what you say after that makes any sense at all, Bill.
“Does relatively low frequency light actually warm something with a higher frequency?”
Huh??
“We understand wattage of various frequencies but is this only potential to heat or is it actually usable watts?”
??
“Frequency of sound is simply canceled from opposing frequencies”
??
Where do you get these gems?
bdgwx,
The distribution of energy does impact our climate because the albedo is not constant. The south pole reflects better than the north pole. I think we agree that if the south pole is getting more energy on the millennial time scale, the earth cools.
Proposal: small perturbations in the earths orbit sum up to create the Milankovitch cycles. The perturbations do not act constantly at the same vector and will be cyclical, proportionate to the location of Jupiter primarily. Agree?
The short term perturbations in the earths orbit do not change the total TSI, but it does change where the energy is received, therefore impacting our climate.
bdgwx says:
The ocean is not in free orbit around the Earth. It is affected by the tidal influence of Moon in a different way. It has nothing to do with the Earth-Sun distance or the Earth-satellite distance.
————————-
Well obviously you don’t understand the tides are influenced by gravity as is our orbit.
bdgwx says:
Regarding my Earth-shine comment…the Sun-shine that the Sun’s satellites receive is not affected by the Sun-Jupiter barycenter wobble just as the Earth-shine that the Earth’s satellites receive is not affected by the Earth-Moon barycenter wobble.
——————–
Thats just false bdgwx. You can try to argue that the effect is too small but you are ignorant if you argue it doesn’t exist. And its an ignorant argument its too small also because you have no data to support that beyond direct total sunlight.
bdgwx says:
Clouds are a topic of ongoing and intense research in the scientific community. Their radiative forcing effect is considered. They are not ignored in any way political or otherwise.
——————
You are wrong again. Since they are both unquantified and ignored the only reason why is its political.
bdgwx says:
Solar cycles are a topic of ongoing and intense research in the scientific community. Their radiative forcing effect is considered. They are not ignored in any way political or otherwise. Again…this has nothing to do with the Earth-;sun distance though.
And yes solar cycles are believed to be influenced by planetary orbits. Again…this has nothing to do with the Earth-Sun distance though.
Yes. We are still learning about the warming effects of radiation. Our knowledge on the topic is not perfect nor will it ever be. But it’s also not zero either and the level of knowledge is always increasing. Again…this has nothing to do with the Earth-Sun distance though.
—————–
It may have little to do with earth sun distance but it does have something to do with it. You can’t ignore that science believes that two orbiting bodies assume similar shaped orbits around their common barycenter. Add in more planets and the laws of physics on gravity and distance and there it would be violation of the laws of physics for it to not have an effect on earth sun distance.
Ontop of which earth sun distance is but one of many variables. . . .including affects of gravitational forces on solar gases potentially affecting solar cycles and the frequency of light given off by the sun. then a total wild card of magnetic pulses occurring between the earth and sun from unknown causes. Magnetism pulls on everything to some extent. but you ignorantly just believe what you have been told to believe. Nobody has proven it to you are you would be laying out proofs rather than ignorantly pooh poohing everything you don’t want to believe.
And science is making slow progress on the affects of other planets in climate. Here is an article from PNAS on just that topic. https://www.pnas.org/content/115/24/6153
Nate says:
“The ignorant always..” Lots of undeserved ad homs for demonstrably smart and infinitely tolerant BDGWX in there, Bill.
Point?
———————-
Nothing ad hominem about ignorance Nate. We are all relatively ignorant. The real ad hom would be a word for somebody who actually believes he is not ignorant, one who doesn’t do the work day in and day out to better understand exactly what it is that makes our world as marvelous as it is. But the fact is that person is only slightly less ignorant.
Nate says:
“In my view we have a lot to learn about radiant heat…”
But none of what you say after that makes any sense at all, Bill.
—————–
bdgwx picked up on that Nate. Perhaps you should do a little research on how vibrations warm stuff. Thermosphere is very hot because it warms from high frequency light from the sun and has nothing around like CO2 to cool it before it gets that hot.
Nate says:
“Does relatively low frequency light actually warm something with a higher frequency?”
Huh??
“We understand wattage of various frequencies but is this only potential to heat or is it actually usable watts?”
??
“Frequency of sound is simply canceled from opposing frequencies”
??
Where do you get these gems?
—————–
Add any two identical wave frequencies together in opposite phase and get get less amplitude. Study up on noise canceling technology. All it is is monitoring incoming noise noting its frequency and amplitude then generating an identical signal 180 degrees out of phase with the incoming sound.
bill,
I never said ocean tides are not influenced by gravity. What I said was that ocean tides do not behave the same way as objects in free orbit. The fact that ocean tides ebb and flow does not in anyway suggest that satellites in free orbit bob in and out.
The Earth-Sun distance does NOT change as a result of solar inertial movement about the Sun-Jupiter barycenter. Therefore the amount of radiation received by Earth via this same phenomenon does not change either. It’s not the effect is small; it’s that the effect is completely non-existent. If you are trying to argue otherwise then understand that the argument is wrong.
Regarding clouds…refer to IPCC AR5 WGI chapter 8. There you will find information about clouds, their effect on the climate system, estimates of the effect, and numerous publication citations in which you can explorer all of the details if you desire.
bdgwx says:
The fact that ocean tides ebb and flow does not in anyway suggest that satellites in free orbit bob in and out.
The Earth-Sun distance does NOT change as a result of solar inertial movement about the Sun-Jupiter barycenter. Therefore the amount of radiation received by Earth via this same phenomenon does not change either. Its not the effect is small; its that the effect is completely non-existent. If you are trying to argue otherwise then understand that the argument is wrong.
———————
bdgwx it would be a violation of basic well accepted physics of gravity and distance if the satellites didn’t bob in and out when exposed to gravitational fields from the other planets.
The only rational argument you can make is the bobbing is extremely minor. But it does exist. However, its silly talking about the planets themselves having solar TSI affected by the process as the movement is very small because the gravity difference and distance compared to the sun’s gravitational pull is very small.
However, the speculation on this having a climate effect isn’t based upon planets slightly changing their orbit as they move around the sun in front of say Jupiter and then on the other side of the sun from Jupiter. The theories I have discussed are what effects Jupiter in particular and Saturn secondarily have on solar gases. It takes very little force to move gases. Solar scientists haven’t found convincing evidence of this but OTOH they are struggling to come up with anything convincing about how the sun actually operates and varies essentially blowing prediction after prediction and getting stuff right essentially by random chance.
bdgwx says:
Regarding cloudsrefer to IPCC AR5 WGI chapter 8. There you will find information about clouds, their effect on the climate system, estimates of the effect, and numerous publication citations in which you can explorer all of the details if you desire.
———————-
I am not interested in exploring cloud effects. I am interested in how clouds vary. For a starter it would be good if we could measure clouds to somewhere above 99% accuracy. Then you would at least know what to look for.
Thanks for that pubpeer link bdgwx, interesting reading but rather sad. Scott R got the concept quickly compared to the professor.
Thousands of people could have told her, but there’s only a few there, why?
I’m afraid it’s like Richard Muller described here:
https://tinyurl.com/ua7lsht
That doesn’t cause the Sun to move away from the Earth or change the amount of radiation the Earth receives though.
bdgwx,
The earth’s albedo is not uniform, therefore the shape of the orbit does change the amount of energy the earth absorbs. The south pole is especially good at reflecting the suns energy. Currently, the alignment of Jupiter and Saturn in the current location is causing the perihelion to be reduced slightly, and the aphelion to be increased slightly. That puts more energy on the south pole where it reflects and less energy on the north pole.
‘Currently, the alignment of Jupiter and Saturn in the current location is causing the perihelion to be reduced slightly, and the aphelion to be increased slightly. That puts more energy on the south pole where it reflects and less energy on the north pole.’
Uhhh, reference?
My understanding is that Earths orbital parameters change only over thousands of years, which give rise, eg, to the Milankovitch cycles.
Nate says: ‘My understanding is that Earths orbital parameters change only over thousands of years, which give rise, eg, to the Milankovitch cycles.’
Your understanding is wrong. The Milankovitch cycle theory speculates that the earths orbital parameters vary in order to create the pattern of glaciations and interglacials we have seen.
It doesn’t say squat about there not being any other shorter period effects that vary earth’s orbit. In fact, scientific understanding of how gravity works demands there be other orbital variations. Anybody halfway familiar with the issue understands that. Those who think it doesn’t matter simply say its too small to have an effect on our climate. They don’t ignorantly say it doesn’t exist.
And of course how small is too small? Fact is nobody knows. Gases are incredibly sensitive to any kind of forcing to a point many believe the movement of gases is chaotic in nature. We don’t understand the effects of magnetism on our atmosphere nor do we understand high frequency light and its potential effects, nor do we understand the potential association of that to other planets affecting the sun’s gas atmosphere.
The fact is Nate, you are using an illogical argument to argue for your point of view and you are reduced to that sort of illogical argument because you can’t quantify the effects of what you believe affects climate either.
Bill,
“shorter period effects that vary earths orbit”
Please do tell us all that you know about these effects.
And Bill, how the Earth’s orbital parameters change is well understood, and is NOT Milankovitch’s theory.
Milankovitch’s theory is about how the KNOWN orbital changes over thousands of years produce the glacial cycles.
Nate says:
Bill,
shorter period effects that vary earths orbit
Please do tell us all that you know about these effects.
———————
Hmmmm, about as much as anybody else knows about any effects on climate.
Nate says:
And Bill, how the Earths orbital parameters change is well understood, and is NOT Milankovitchs theory.
Milankovitchs theory is about how the KNOWN orbital changes over thousands of years produce the glacial cycles.
———————
Hmmmm, perhaps English isn’t your first language. Thats what I said. The Milankovitch theory doesn’t rule out other effects as you were attempting to do so by saying thats the only way changes occur.
Put a large number of external variable into effect, magnetism, gravity from the entire universe, sunlight, solar cycles, cosmic radiation then mix it with a chaotic or near chaotic gaseous atmosphere with the phase changes of water, aerosols, carbon dioxide, methane, and you probably get some random walks of climate and huge amounts of momentum occurring for out of equilibrium conditions caused by a variety of forcings of all sorts. It seems idiotic to pin the entire fate of the world on one unproven theory over all others. It was idiotic 32 years ago and its gotten nothing but more idiotic since as the initial projections of doom and gloom have failed to substantially materialize.
Meanwhile IPCC science has cranked back from 1.5c to 4.5c warming to .8c to 2.5c. In my trade when we saw such events we realized that eyes were just cracking open on an issue and that more likely than not the difference would continue to widen.
And thats pretty scientific of a concept as its well known how stubborn and invested folks become and how they resist change. In fact the whole of excite about a little global warming is symptomatic of resistance to change whether it be good or bad.
bill said: Meanwhile IPCC science has cranked back from 1.5c to 4.5c warming to .8c to 2.5c.
Can you post the IPCC publication that states they are now going with a range of 0.8-2.5C for 2xCO2? I’d like to review that.
“It seems idiotic to pin the entire fate of the world on one unproven theory over all others”
And thats why no one is claiming that, Bill.
A poor attempt at strawman.
“Hmmmm, about as much as anybody else knows about any effects on climate.”
You know nothing about it, but claim it is important, and assume, falsely, that science knows as much as you do.
At least you’re consistent.
bdgwx says:
Can you post the IPCC publication that states they are now going with a range of 0.8-2.5C for 2xCO2? I’d like to review that.
—————-
IPCC AR5 WG1
bill,
Here is what I see in IPCC AR5 WGI SPM page 16 bullet point 2.
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf
The equilibrium climate sensitivity quantifies the response of the climate system to constant radiative forcing on multicentury time scales. It is defined as the change in global mean surface temperature at equilibrium that is caused by a
doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high
confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence).
bdgwx you are reading the SPM, Summary for Policy Makers a document prepared by policy makers not scientists.
Can you point me to what I’m supposed to be looking at then?
I gave you the reference bdgwx. If you don’t read the whole section on the physical basis you will not gain any concept of the wide range of disagreement among the participants.
Bill made up a factoid, got caught. Oh well.
Just admit and move on.
yes nate says please move along, nothing to see in the actual document written by scientists, better to just absorb what the politicians approved in the summary document. LMAO!!
bill said: I gave you the reference bdgwx. If you don’t read the whole section on the physical basis you will not gain any concept of the wide range of disagreement among the participants.
I read the entirety of chapter 12 actually; not just one section. In fact the SPM reference I gave you explicitly points you to Box 12.2 beginning on pg. 1110 of the ARG WGI Physical Science Basis. It states 1.5-4.5C there too.
Bill,
‘better to just absorb what the politicians approved in the summary document.’
You ask us to do work to confirm or disprove information that you’ve simply made up, and cant be bothered to check yourself.
Par for the course with you.
bdgwx says: I read the entirety of chapter 12 actually; not just one section.
——————–
You can’t get chapter 12 right unless you first pin down chapter 10. There you will find the .8 to 2.5.
Chapter 12 then speculates on longterm feedbacks when there is no consensus on how much warming will occur and has occurred as a direct result of radiative forcing. Its a premise necessary for Chapter 12.
Here is more reading on the topic.
https://judithcurry.com/2012/12/19/climate-sensitivity-in-the-ar5-sod/
https://judithcurry.com/2012/02/27/lindzens-seminar-at-the-house-of-commons/
https://judithcurry.com/2019/08/22/climate-change-whats-the-worst-case/
https://judithcurry.com/2019/01/23/early-20th-century-global-warming/
https://judithcurry.com/2015/11/16/400-years-of-warming/
Des, Svante, please stop trolling.
As a relative simpleton I would like to ask a simple question.
Could the shutdown of America have led to an immediate effect on the jet stream leading to these change of temperatures. I always thought that the ever increasing methane levels over the country might also have an effect.
I also wondered if the rapid movement of the magnetic north pole might also be signalling something deep within the mantle. On top of everything is it the year for increased volcanic and earthquake activity?
Hey Brian,
The change to meridional jet stream flow was inevitable. The arctic was like a coiled spring of negative energy. The strong jet stream locked up the cold air all winter. When it was released, we saw the arctic spike in temperature and USA 48 drop. There is no relation to man made gases.
The global shutdown won’t have a significant effect either way.
There is little evidence to suggest that Earth’s magnetic field has any meaningful affect on the climate today.
As for the jet stream the amplified warming in the Arctic region may lead to what is called quasi-resonant amplification of the polar jet. This a long term process though. And it is still heavily debated in academic circles.
bdgwx says:
There is little evidence to suggest that Earths magnetic field has any meaningful affect on the climate today. As for the jet stream the amplified warming in the Arctic region may lead to what is called quasi-resonant amplification of the polar jet. This a long term process though. And it is still heavily debated in academic circles.
——————-
There is little evidence to suggest any specific thing is affecting our climate. And heavy debate exists regarding all the various potential mechanisms. . . .maybe not in academic circles as much but academic circles largely get all their science funding from a single source.
There is a mountain of evidence that says grand solar cycles, Milankovitch cycles, clouds, aerosols, dust, biological activity, greenhouse gases, ocean currents, continental positioning, CFCs, land use changes, land-albedo feedbacks, ice-albedo feedbacks, agriculture, and I myriad of other things do IN FACT have an affect on the climate. None of these are disputed in any significant way.
Things that are significantly disputed are magnetic fields and galactic cosmic rays, etc.
Bdgwx, lets confine the discussion for a moment to discussion of the solar output, since you seem focused on that. Quite honestly I haven’t studied this aspect but on the surface I am hearing that solar output varies by .1% output during solar cycles which amounts to 1.4 watts/m2. Since we have only been able to accurately measure this outside of the atmosphere I suspect the data record to the current degree of accuracy is only 40 years long. And since water vapor accounts for by far the lionshare of the greenhouse effect why would not water vapor respond to solar input?
As an auditor my audit flags started flying high and red when I heard from the science community no less that all the water vapor in the air came from a few watts of CO2 greenhouse effect and the effect of a ~1365 watt sun was being completely ignored. So a doubling of CO2 is supposed to produce another 3 something watts of CO2 forcing from which roughly 1/4 of which has occurred in the satellite era, amounting to about .8watts, less than the change of a solar cycle.
So what am I missing? And thats not to talk about the fact solar cycles affect high frequency light as a wattage percentage far more than overall wattage. But I already know you don’t have much to say about that because of ignorance of what that might imply.
And forget about dividing the solar output by four which is a favorite ploy in this discussion. Fact is most evaporation and convection occurs during 1/4 to 1/2 of a day on 1/4 to 1/2 of the planet surface at a time. And as such I am not talking about unproven insulation-making multiple layers of a gas blanket I am talking only about the well established effect of having warm greenhouse gases in the sky in one single layer.
Where I debark from the runaway greenhouse effect train is how all this is orchestrated instead by a layer of CO2 above the action layer. If you have some lucid comments on this very specific view of the situation I would be quite interested.
bill,
Where are you getting claims that clouds and now the sun are “completely ignored”? I’d like to review where these claims are coming from.
Anyway…a 0.1% change in solar output equates to about 1360 * 0.001 = 1.4 W/m^2 change in TSI. To convert this to the radiative forcing at the surface you divide by 4 to account for the fact that Earth is a sphere and then multiple by 0.7 to account for Earth’s albedo. This gives an RF of 1.4 / 4 * 0.7 = 0.25 W/m^2.
But that is the trough-to-peak change. The peak-to-peak, trough-to-trough, or mid-to-mid change is 0 W/m^2. Likewise the residual change over several equal cycles is 0 W/m^2. So the net change in solar forcing over several cycles is 0 W/m^2.
Long term solar forcing is actually driven by the grand cycles. It can produce up to 0.25 W/m^2 of forcing for several decades. The modern grand maximum peaked around 1960. Solar activity and solar radiation has been on a secular decline ever since.
So the 2xCO2 forcing about an order of magnitude higher than the forcing from the solar grand cycles.
why divide it by 4?
CO2 forcing in terms of evaporating water vapor is simply wasted wattage at night where the surface is cooling faster than the atmosphere. And evaporating water would seem to be how you get greenhouse effects feedback.
Thus while “the greenhouse effect” is produced by greenhouse gases over the entire surface of the planet, and average insolation tells you the equivalent sunshine. It doesn’t need to follow that evaporation is a mean surface temperature thing.
Do you have a study that elucidates on this issue a bit more? Some times when you just run with averages you don’t get the same results.
TSI is measured perpendicular to the surface. To convert it into the flux over the entire Earth you divide by 4. The division by 4 occurs because the Earth is a sphere so its surface bend away from the Sun’s rays. The rays spread out over larger and larger areas the closer to the poles you get. Then, of course, only half of the Earth is lit at any given time. So the average flux Earth receives at TOA is actually 1360 / 4 = 340 W/m^2. And the amount taken up by Earth is 340 * 0.7 = 240 W/m^2 with 100 W/m^2 being reflected away.
bdgwx says: TSI is measured perpendicular to the surface. To convert it into the flux over the entire Earth you divide by 4. The division by 4 occurs because the Earth is a sphere so its surface bend away from the Sun’s rays. The rays spread out over larger and larger areas the closer to the poles you get. Then, of course, only half of the Earth is lit at any given time. So the average flux Earth receives at TOA is actually 1360 / 4 = 340 W/m^2. And the amount taken up by Earth is 340 * 0.7 = 240 W/m^2 with 100 W/m^2 being reflected away.
——————————–
You didn’t answer the question bdgwx
I wasn’t measuring global mean TSI bdgwx. You only need to do that to measure pre-feedback sensitivity.
I was measuring the increase in TSI where water is evaporating, not where just the cooling is slowed down. Water doesn’t generally evaporate at night because the surface is cooling, water is condensing. Its also probably the case that large areas of the sunny half of the globe doesn’t get sufficient light to evaporate much water either. Probably 3/4’s of global mean forcing doesn’t do squat if its evenly distributed. You need to get it under the 1365 watt sun where the surface is warming fast for it to kick arse on water vapor feedback.
Like I asked do you have study that explicitly refutes what I am saying? You just parroting the CAWG propaganda line simply doesn’t impress me. I like to see the science on it.
bill, you asked “why divide it by 4?”. The answer is because Earth is a sphere. Water vapor is an important topic too. What is your question exactly?
bdgwx says:
bill, you asked why divide it by 4?. The answer is because Earth is a sphere. Water vapor is an important topic too. What is your question exactly?
———————–
The topic I was discussing when you suggested dividing it by 4 was the evaporation of water which is recognized as a feedback twice the original forcing.
Dividing by 4 is what you do to figure mean global TSI. But what I am talking about is a focused concentration on evaporating water and if you spray your heat texas sharpshooter style you aren’t going to get as much evaporation as if you aim the heat at the water at the same time 1365watts of TSI is aiming at the water.
So to be abundantly clear as it seems necessary. I understand how you divide by 4 to get average TSI across the entire globe. But its a texas sharpshooter fallacy to claim you need to do the same thing to estimate the rate of water evaporation increase. Basic physics of water evaporation should tell you that.
bdgwx chooses not to understand when you explain that dividing by four, whilst all well and good mathematically, doesn’t represent the correct physics that exist in a real-world scenario.
bill said: But its a texas sharpshooter fallacy to claim you need to do the same thing to estimate the rate of water evaporation increase. Basic physics of water evaporation should tell you that.
I never said you divide by 4 in regards to quantifying anything with evaporation. What I said is that if you want to quantify the RF corresponding to solar TSI changes you use the formula RF = delta-TSI/4 * 0.7. Also understand that CO2’s RF almost always includes the WV feedback unless specifically noted otherwise. In other words 2xCO2 at 3.7 W/m^2 includes the WV feedback.
DREMT,
The amount of energy Earth receives in one year is 1360 W/m^2 / 4 * 510e12 m^2 * 1 year = 173e15 W-years. That is real physics. If you don’t divide TSI by 4 you get the wrong answer. That is wrong physics.
…and the amount you get on a second by second basis is received only over the lit hemisphere. And that is the correct physics.
bdgwx says:
I never said you divide by 4 in regards to quantifying anything with evaporation.
———————-
You were responding to my comments on evaporation bdgwx. Thus its perfectly reasonable to assume that is what you were saying. I will accept your retraction.
bill, You requested that we “confine the discussion for a moment to discussion of the solar output”. So that’s what I did. Shame on me for not spelling out that the divide 4 is only necessary for geometric conversions like from a disk to a sphere and that because quantification of RF from CO2 and WV or quantification of evaporation needs no such conversion you need not divide by 4. I’ll try to be more careful in the future. However, understand that I also do not want to patronize you so I’m going to still err on the side of you understanding the context and refrain from spelling things out unless I’m absolutely certain it is necessary.
bdgwx says:
bill, You requested that we “confine the discussion for a moment to discussion of the solar output”.
—————
That would be “solar output” not mean insolation on the surface of earth.
—————-
—————-
bdgwx says:
So that’s what I did. Shame on me for not spelling out that the divide 4 is only necessary for geometric conversions like from a disk to a sphere and that because quantification of RF from CO2 and WV or quantification of evaporation needs no such conversion you need not divide by 4. I’ll try to be more careful in the future. However, understand that I also do not want to patronize you so I’m going to still err on the side of you understanding the context and refrain from spelling things out unless I’m absolutely certain it is necessary.
———————-
Its understandable when you believe a theory that CO2 is the only way that water vapor gets into the atmosphere bdgwx.
bill said: That would be “solar output” not mean insolation on the surface of earth.
Ok, sure. What are thinking exactly?
bill said: Its understandable when you believe a theory that CO2 is the only way that water vapor gets into the atmosphere bdgwx.
I don’t believe that CO2 is the only way that water vapor gets into the atmosphere and I don’t want you to believe that either. Would you like to explorer this topic further?
sure lets explore this. i may have assumed you were a believer in the CO2 is the climate control knob theory that is the essential basis of the ECS figures you bandied about from Chapter 12.
Here is what the science says in regard to WV and how it relates to long term changes in global temperature.
It is a condensing gas. That means it evaporates into the atmosphere and precipitates out of the atmosphere via phase changes. These phase changes are determine by pressure and temperature. And as you probably know pressure and temperature are also coupled with each other. For each temperature and pressure level there is a maximum amount of WV that a parcel of air can hold. The smaller the spread between the temperature and dewpoint the more/less likely it is for H2O to condense/evaporate. The larger the spread between the temperature and dewpoint the less/more likely it is for H2O to condense/evaporate. The effect this has on a planetary scale is to create a stable equilibrium between WV content and temperature. Perturbations away from this equilibrium result in processes that drive WV content back towards the equilibrium. And finally these evaporation and precipitation processes are very rapid.
What this means is that WV, on its own, cannot force a change in temperature. The reason is precisely because it is a condensing gas. Perturbations above/below the equilibrium set by the temperature tend to self correct before the energy imbalances they cause have enough to time to change the temperature. This is the a crucial concept.
But…don’t hear what I’m not saying. That does NOT mean that WV cannot amplify a temperature change. It most certainly does. But it requires another agent to force or catalyze that change first. Once a temperature change has been catalyzed by something else the GHG of the WV works to amplify that change.
There are many agents that can catalyze temperature changes on their own. These include but are not limited to changes in solar output, changes in stratospheric aerosols, changes in albedo, changes in non-condensing GHGs, and many more. What sets WV apart from CO2, CH4, etc. is that it is condensing whereas the others are non-condensing. The amount of CO2, CH4, etc. that the atmosphere can hold is NOT dependent on the temperature. There is no natural equilibrium in which those gas are forced to condense out…because…they are non-condensing in an atmospheric environment.
CO2 is not the climate control knob. It is only a participant in the climate control knob. It must be considered in totality with all of the other agents that can catalyze temperature changes. There can be periods in which CO2 dominates over all of the other agents and periods in which is is quiescent. We just happen to live in an era where it is dominating.
If there is something you don’t understand or something you feel that I have not articulated well then please ask questions. Don’t presume I believe something that I don’t. And, of course, if you feel that I have not described what science understands about WV correctly then please chime on that too.
as you know you can’t have your cake and eat it too.
I have since a young child had a compulsion to experiment. I don’t know where the compulsion arose but I was never satisfied with an explanation without understanding the role of every variable thoroughly and understanding how things changed with changes in experimental subject and all it variations of its variables.
I can appreciate the physics that goes into all of it as physics was always my favorite among the sciences. However, I gravitated into natural sciences rather than physics with their much greater complexities all the while keeping an open mind to all the possibilities that such complexities opened up.
The following article probably best describes the uneasiness with the popular version of the effects of CO2. I have been squarely in this corner of concern practically since the first day I took an interest in climate science since about 14 years ago. The reason was I was already dealing with the exact same issue that Dr Curry discusses here in my area of natural science for nearly a decade before taking up an interest in climate science.
https://judithcurry.com/2013/09/20/co2-control-knob-fallacy/
you should enjoy this being an avowed control knob skeptic.
That’s right, CO2 is long term.
I can be overwhelmed by other factors for decades.
And then it wins.
Svante says:
‘Thats right, CO2 is long term.
I can be overwhelmed by other factors for decades.
And then it wins.’
LOL! Talking about jumping to conclusions. If you mention YD,8.2K,LIA you re talking about much longer phenomena running into centuries. Its just not as obvious as a modern instrument record anomaly that doesn’t have the luxury of centuries. So you have to deal with unobserved anecdotal and proxy data.
Then you talk about Santer’s 17 year fingerprint which at the time was thought to be sufficient to define climate and single it out against natural variation. But multi-decadal was just ignored though it was right in front of them at the time.
So do we set the bar at multi-decadal? Well if we do we still have a few decades to wait out. What if its multi-centennial?
I can agree that CO2 provides some modest but very important climate stability but winning in the long run even at the multi-decadal bar isn’t saying much considering the half life of it is multi-decadal.
Here’s some university (not blog) science:
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/slugulator/
Put in a 400 ppm spike and ‘Show 10,000 Years’.
Point at the temperature anomaly curve to see the result.
CH4 is easier to fix because it is short term.
Her concern is time scale, ok, fine.
But she admits:
“From the perspective of comparative planetology, I think that Lacis makes a plausible argument, from which I infer that without CO2 in the atmosphere, the Earths climate would more closely resemble the climate of its moon rather than the current Earths climate.”
“I gravitated into natural sciences rather than physics”
My physics dept was in the College of Natural Sciences. Makes sense to me.
Svante says:
May 13, 2020 at 12:30 AM
Here’s some university (not blog) science:
————————
the multidecadal half life comes from ipcc ar5
Where do you see that (I’m not familiar with the IPCC reports)?
They have only charted up to the year 2500:
https://tinyurl.com/yap5e8r7
Svante says:
Where do you see that (I’m not familiar with the IPCC reports)?
They have only charted up to the year 2500:
———————————-
You need to go back to Roy’s last post comments discussed in length there with a bunch of references
Blog science then I’m afraid, but where was that exactly?
svante, lol! indeed ipcc science isn,t much removed from blog science.
But there is much more in the comment section of Roy’s previous post, mostly by Chic Bowdry and Bdgwx.
Read IPCC AR4 and AR5 WG1 main reports on the topic. Much is there including an acknowledgement that CO2 would decay quickly to about half its pulse and then more slowly.
Near as I can tell all the sinks that would delay decay would be the dying vegetation and animal life that croaked from a lack of CO2 as they would croak and the carbon they have sequestered would rot slowly. but the ipcc demurred from such a depiction and instead declined to offer an explanation for an extended second half decay.
What you are looking at is model output. Even the scientists at IPCC don’t believe that stuff. Not that its way off, but quite simply all this isn’t well understood. If you don’t read the discussion thoroughly in the IPCC reports you will not be able to put those graphs in the correct context.
Then I’ll stick with the University model.
It is compatible with the IPCC graphs.
The oceans will take up most of a 400 ppm spike within a couple of millenia.
A significant part is left in the atmosphere for a hundred thousand years.
If we stop adding more that is, and unless we can remove it.
If bdgwx says otherwise I’ll reconsider.
Svante says:
Then Ill stick with the University model.
It is compatible with the IPCC graphs.
The oceans will take up most of a 400 ppm spike within a couple of millenia.
A significant part is left in the atmosphere for a hundred thousand years.
If we stop adding more that is, and unless we can remove it.
If bdgwx says otherwise Ill reconsider.
===============================
Of course you will! Why? Because you are overly impressed by models.
I have worked with difficult models for almost 40 years. I don’t know anybody who has done that with models under development who is anywhere near as impressed as you are.
That said, IPCC science consensus believes about half of a 400ppm peak would decay in a few decades. The graph you are looking at sustains the use of fossil fuels forever and different levels and different slopes so the graph is not going to show how fast a spike is going to decay if fossil fuel use was completely replaced by renewables.
So I can’t say the graph you are looking at is actually saying any thing different than what I am saying. Fact is using half lives of a few decades would leave some trace of CO2 in the atmosphere in thousands of years (assuming no other changes in an ever changing atmosphere) strictly using the c14 decay model. And of course their may be soils that take up carbon in methane deposits that take eons to leak back into the atmosphere. Disregading those ‘temporary’ sinks the modelers are using for scare tactics, they also like to scare you into thinking we are going to start uncovering some of the sinks and sending them into the ocean even faster.
It all sounds like to me like a good thing. What really sounds bad is calling our current 400ppm a spike and wishing it would all disappear.
But if you meant a 400ppm spike in 130 years from now well thats not nearly as bad but who wants to go back to the LIA?
Please supply an exact up to date IPCC citation.
Those curves show what happens if we stop burning fossil fuel.
Temperature does not go down as fast as CO2 because of the band saturation effect.
Here’s university science from an expert:
https://tinyurl.com/y72vcnxl
Svante says:
Please supply an exact up to date IPCC citation.
Those curves show what happens if we stop burning fossil fuel.
=============================
the lowest curve was the Paris Accord
IPCC, 2013: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1535 pp.
It contradicts you, what a surprise:
that doesn’t contradict me Svante. 1/3rd to 1/2 is a large fraction.
You said “a few decades”.
IPCC says “multi-century to millennial”.
It would save time if you could provide quotes instead of gish-gallops.
Svante says:’
You said a few decades.
IPCC says multi-century to millennial.
It would save time if you could provide quotes instead of gish-gallops.’
==============================================
i am having a hard time actually believing you are so
stupid so you must be obfuscating. i said half of the CO2 pulse will be gone in a few decades if we stop using fossil fuels.
That is from the IPCC and I gave you the reference.
You said: quoted the IPCC as saying: ‘A large fraction of anthropogenic climate change resulting from CO2 emissions is irreversible on a multi-century to
millennial time scale, except in the case of a large net removal of CO2 from the atmosphere over a sustained period..
There is no inconsistency between what I said the IPCC said and what you said the IPCC. Only a moron would think so.
OK, we can agree:
“half of the CO2 pulse will be gone in a few decades if we stop using fossil fuels”
and
“A large fraction of anthropogenic climate change resulting from CO2 emissions is irreversible on a multi-century to
millennial time scale”.
thats somewhat fair. its good to know from the naaratives that they feel a lot more confident about the first statement than the second one because looking the wide ranges put forth via the pulse resulting in a significant increase of biota sinks, which makes up about 90% of the temporary sinks.
While the IPCC doesn’t get into details on that due likely to wide disagreement it does seem likely that if the biota sinks don’t enlar ge or shrink (which many of the doomsday folks contend); than that large fraction in the end might disappear as fast as the first half.
OTOH if they do significantly enlarge (massive greening) then the second half of the pulse might be around for a long time to come. Which would likely be a good thing, feeding a growing population.
in fact it might be so good, like better than now we might become overly addicted to it. imo, we are already addicted to good times.
bdgwx says:
Things that are significantly disputed are magnetic fields and galactic cosmic rays, etc.
———–
I especially like the etc. LMAO! So all it takes is significant dispute? or is that dispute significance?
There are, of course, other hypothesis that have been falsified. I cannot name them all. Magnetic fields and GCRs tend to be favored by contrarians so I just happen to mention those because of their popularity.
Yes. When hypothesis have been falsified they tend to drop further down the list of possible causative mechanism. The more they get falsified and the harder scientist try to find supporting evidence without finding anything the more unlikely they become to be legit.
By focusing on these outlier and only these outlier hypothesis you are not being very skeptical.
Falsified? I wasn’t aware any of the alternatives had been falsified. Perhaps you could provide a source for that claim?
Not so shocking. The graph looks as anticipated by many big org. However, the main challenge is to know how to deal with it.
Bracing for the inevitable claptrap from Gore and company…
Claptrap: 0.14 C per decade of warming over 41 years.
More relevant perhaps is 0.18C per decade over land.
Even more relevant perhaps is the 0.30C per decade actually on land. rather than a few kilometres overhead.
That’s good, right?
midas…”Even more relevant perhaps is the 0.30C per decade actually on land. rather than a few kilometres overhead”.
None of it is on land, all of it is in the atmosphere. A surface station in Denver, Colorado would be at an altitude of over 5000 feet into the atmosphere whereas one in Bolivia would be over 15,000 feet. Furthermore, there are temperature inversions near the surface that can be misleading.
The satellites cover 95% of the planet’s surface whereas surface stations sparsely cover the 30% of the surface that is land area. The oceans are really sparsely covered. Those calculating surface averages have resorted to fudging the temperatures for areas in a climate model based on an interpolation and homogenizations of real temperatures up to 1200 miles away.
The surface record is so fudged it has become unreliable.
that’s a lie about coverage of the surface area
GR
The satellites do NOT cover the surface.
Gordon, good comment and extremely important. Surface data sets are very poor and are not based on anything closely approaching “science”.
I always get a kick out of the true believers who feel the need to deny basic scientific principles to support the surface temperature abortions.
RM, can you provide a link to a surface dataset that you believe is based on science?
Accuracy of surface instrumental record now confirmed with satellite obvservations.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aafd4e/pdf
Robert Ingersol
Thanks, I completely forgot this AIRS paper. Hopefully their grid data is in ASCII, and not in NetCDF format.
Rgds
J.-P. D.
sys…”Claptrap: 0.14 C per decade of warming over 41 years”.
Once more for the bean-counters who create graphs without looking at the underlying contexts.
The first 18 years of the UAH time series indicates global average anomalies colder than the average to that point from 1979. It was not till 1998 that the anomalies broke through the baseline and became true warming.
Even at that, there was an 18 years flat trend following the 1998 EN spike and it was another EN spike in 2016 that drove the trend upward again. Since then, the global average has been working its way down in fits and starts.
How can anyone claim a 0.14C/decade linear ‘TRUE” warming trend when 18 years was below average and another 18 years had a flat trend? What happens if the anomalies drop back to the baseline? How then will you calculate the trend?
These trends are not calculated using a best fit of the data over the entire range since that could not be done using end points between 1979 and 2020. They are calculated using algorithms that ignore the physical contexts. They operate on the data alone without consideration of the contexts from which the data came.
The only way a 0.14C trend could have been calculated for TRUE warming would have been a scenario in which the UAH trend began at the baseline in 1979 and continued upward till the trend line intercepted the y-axis after 40 years at 0.56C. That has not been the case.
UAH is using the 0.14C/decade trend on the data only but they explain the context in the 33 year report. They explain the aerosol cooling over the first 18 years, they explain the change to true warming after the 1998 EN, and the following flat trend.
The IPCC corroborated 15 years of the flat trend. However, UAH must scientifically supply the trend of the data which alarmists have pounced on as proof of anthropogenic warming.
ps. the bean-counters are not a reference to UAH or the graph on this site. It’s a reference to layman statisticians who input UAH data to their Excel spreadsheets, oblivious to the conditions underlying the data they blindly plug into their calculators.
who is this grobertson guy? trends are calculated, not derived by eye. how can someone not know this?
& without aerosol cooling, uah global warming would be even higher.
He likes his PRATTs, for example that base lines are the gold standard for “true warming” (they are arbitrary).
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Point_refuted_a_thousand_times
“continued upward till the trend line intercepted the y-axis ”
Very sciency with ‘intercept the y-axis,’ but seems confused on which axis that is.
Gordo completely fails to understand “baseline” and what the trend means. The baseline is calculated as the average over some “base period, which is 1981-2010 for the UAH data. The fact that there are more data points below the average in the beginning of the record and more above later just tells anyone who’s listening that there warming going on. The trend calculation does not rely on the baseline in regard and the trend is the important variable, not this month’s particular value above (or below) the baseline.
Moron.
I didn’t get such a far reaching speculation as you did Swanson from Gordon’s comments.
A baseline should be something real like a climate equilibrium, not some point in time where it started allegedly just started warming. We don’t even know if that’s the case or not.
If I embrace mainstream climate science concepts of feedbacks proceeding for centuries after a climate change, I can easily make sense of the idea that warming actually started at the beginning of the 18th century. The advance of glaciers continued for another 150 years after thermometers started rising slowing the warming via radiative albedo feedbacks. However, eventually the system momentum caught up glacial advance slowed and the glaciers began to melt accelerating warming. Fits mainstream science projections on albedo feedbacks quite well and does it in a more pure manner as its not pointing primarily at sea ice changes which may not have positive feedback. The glaciers though would seem to be far more likely to represent positive feedback.
So Gordon seems right on the mark calling out baselines on dates alone.
The World Meteorological Congress, WMO’s top decision-making body on Standards, approved a resolution that WMO will update the climatological Standard Normals for operational purposes every 10 years and will use 1981-2010 as the current base period. However, it will retain 1961-1990 as the historical base period for the sake of supporting long-term climate change assessments.
“In a world in which the climate is changing rapidly, we need to update the climate normals more frequently than we did in the past to keep them useful,” said Thomas C. Peterson, President of the WMO Commission for Climatology and Principal Scientist of NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information.
https://tinyurl.com/yczsc7ew
Svante says:
‘In a world in which the climate is changing rapidly, we need to update the climate normals more frequently than we did in the past to keep them useful,’
==========================
Yep lacking a baseline that describes the world as ideal and at equilibrium is a real bitch!
Svante, Swanson, please stop trolling.
Thanks for the report.
The increase of the linear warming to 0.14 is interesting, but we are at a local maximum. It may slightly decrease if the temperature stays lower for some time (what I expect).
Is it too early to say the pause is back? We are at the same temperature as early 1999.
It is the opposite of “the pause”. The trend since 2008 is 0.4 per decade. That is twelve years of super warming.
tim…”It is the opposite of the pause. The trend since 2008 is 0.4 per decade. That is twelve years of super warming”.
Even the alarmist IPCC declared a flat trend from 1998 – 2012. How do you manage a 0.4C/decade trend from 2008 when it’s in the middle of a flat trend? If you look at the UAH data, the flat trend carried on till 2015. Any claim of a 0.4c/decade trend has to begin at 2015 then take into account the negative trend after 2016.
GR
Please quote the IPCC saying this. They had better say “flat trend” or “zero trend”. If not, you are embellishing – as usual.
There is generally a linear trend combined with “iregullary regular” 3.6-year wave. The current downward trend comes a little bit sooner than I expected. There are similar shorter cycles in the history but I do not feel sure that the temperature does not turn up again for some limited time.
Your “iregullary regular” cycle is the El Nino/La Nina cycle. Models are predicting La Nina is coming, but the models aren’t always correct.
Forecasts are particularly uncertain during SH Autumn (NH Spring). ENSO neutral is the near term prediction, and beyond that is too uncertain.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/#tabs=Outlooks
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/outlook.html
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
No one should take any notice of BOM their forecasting is appalling because they over ride everything from a climate model which gives the wrong answer. In the case of weather they would be better off saying the weather tomorrow will be the same as today, for one year out they would be better saying it will be the same as last year, and for the still longer out there is an 10-11 year cycle, a 50-60 year cycle and an 100-120 year cycle.
How do you think JMA and NOAA’s methods of ENSO forecasting compares with BoM? Who do you think has a superior method, and why? Which of the 3 has the best forecasting record, do you think?
I like to tease the trendies by bringing up the fact that the anomaly is the same at certain points as the wave cycles. Kind of like a broken watch being right twice a day.
The thing about trends is they wander all over the place depend on what endpoints one cherry picks. But it is an unwavering fact that the average temperature last month is the same as it was on the down side of the El Nino in 1999. It doesn’t matter what the temperatures have been in between, because no one knows what the temperatures will be going forward.
Yes start and end points matter, except when the sample size is so large that it makes barely a difference if you add another month or year, even an outlier.
The error with a lot of prognostication on linear temperature trends is that the time period is too short. The other fault is a lack of concession to statistical significance, and what it really means. EG, if a trend fails statistical significance, that doesn’t mean there is no trend. Proving the failing to disprove the null hypothesis doesn’t mean that the null hypothesis is then true.
Sloppy edit – should be:
Failing to disprove the null hypothesis doesn’t mean that the null hypothesis is then true.
So after that exposition, what will be the trend starting now going forward?
There’s no trend worth talking about unless is multidecadal.
Over the long term, as more CO2 enters the atmosphere, the surface will get warmer,
Faith.
Nope, physics.
Nope, faith.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281967%29024%3C0241%3ATEOTAW%3E2.0.CO%3B2
Exactly, faith that computations such as these, and the reasoning behind them, is correct.
Or
“faith that computations such as these, and the reasoning behind them” are totally wrong, without having any clue what they mean..
As usual, the lame-brain critics think they know better than qualified ‘skeptics’ like Roy Spencer, John Christy, Richard Lindzen, Roger Pielke Senior. Apparently these experts on atmospheric physics, despite being strong critics of the IPCC and ‘alarmism’, lack the insight that armchair ‘skeptics’ have cobbled together on blogs.
The arrogance of people like DREMT is breathtaking. Perhaps it’s a measure of their ignornace. How else do they manage to so completely fool themselves?
barry says:
May 8, 2020 at 7:06 PM
As usual, the lame-brain critics think they know better than qualified skeptics like Roy Spencer, John Christy, Richard Lindzen, Roger Pielke Senior. Apparently these experts on atmospheric physics, despite being strong critics of the IPCC and alarmism, lack the insight that armchair skeptics have cobbled together on blogs.
——————-
And since you didn’t put yourself on that list means all you do is copy what people in authority say. Several of the leading scientists considered to be skeptics or deniers by the blind believers concede the case for multi-layered greenhouse effects isn’t at all described in physics. Its instead simply intuitively believed as is in seems perfectly plausible without having a described process of taking heat ostensibly trapped (by an unnatural concept of a static atmosphere) high in the atmosphere back to the surface to warm it. Sort of a 50,000 foot leap of faith.
But people have definitely believed, including scientists, far wilder things. And in fact those same scientists remain concerned that life on the planet will not evolve fast enough to keep up. . . .which includes evolving from those scientists who have tended to believe in some pretty wild stuff.
Gee look at the response from the government putting in a few dollars in the desert to investigate UFOs, it bred generations of true believers.
Actually getting a bit into psychology, the average guy who doesn’t believe he is too smart actually is smarter than somebody who believes he is smart. Why? Because he can see the truth.
Myself, I am not smart; but it does seem to me to be logical we should be spending our resources less on climate and more on pandemic responses. And no doubt that will be laughed at by the money grows on trees crowd.
The point is, barry, I have never seen you display even a scintilla of doubt that they are correct. You appear to have absolute faith. It’s not a question of “DREMT thinks he knows better than…”
It’s a question of “barry would never think to question…”
You wrote “over the long term, as more CO2 enters the atmosphere, the surface will get warmer”. There was no “probably”. It was a statement of certainty. That requires faith on your part.
Except DREMT is the one expressing absolute certainty, absolute FAITH that there is no GHE, regardless of what science has found.
Remember?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/04/march-2020-co2-levels-at-mauna-loa-show-no-obvious-effect-from-global-economic-downturn/#comment-462550
The force of hypocrisy is strong with this one.
#2
The point is, barry, I have never seen you display even a scintilla of doubt that they are correct. You appear to have absolute faith. It’s not a question of “DREMT thinks he knows better than…”
It’s a question of “barry would never think to question…”
You wrote “over the long term, as more CO2 enters the atmosphere, the surface will get warmer”. There was no “probably”. It was a statement of certainty. That requires faith on your part.
Please repeat your post, but louder, since no one read it the first two times.
#3
The point is, barry, I have never seen you display even a scintilla of doubt that they are correct. You appear to have absolute faith. It’s not a question of “DREMT thinks he knows better than…”
It’s a question of “barry would never think to question…”
You wrote “over the long term, as more CO2 enters the atmosphere, the surface will get warmer”. There was no “probably”. It was a statement of certainty. That requires faith on your part.
Still not loud enough. No one’s paying attention. Maybe try some original content..
#4
The point is, barry, I have never seen you display even a scintilla of doubt that they are correct. You appear to have absolute faith. It’s not a question of “DREMT thinks he knows better than…”
It’s a question of “barry would never think to question…”
You wrote “over the long term, as more CO2 enters the atmosphere, the surface will get warmer”. There was no “probably”. It was a statement of certainty. That requires faith on your part.
Chic,
You do know how to calculate the trend using all of the data instead of cherry picking two points, don’t you?
bobd …”You do know how to calculate the trend using all of the data instead of cherry picking two points, dont you?”
You certainly don’t. so why are you asking chic?
Yeah I do, and have had to do it by hand to validate analytical equipment.
It’s 19th century stuff, you should be good to go.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Least_squares
I didn’t calculate a trend, because trends don’t cause temperatures to be what they are.
Gawd that’s effing brilliant!
The pause was a trend without statistical significance, likewise comparing two point in time tells you very little about the trend.
I could eyeball Feb 2012 to Feb 2020 and conclude that the world is burning up.
But the trend for that period does not exclude 0 as a trend so it does not provide great information.
“I didnt calculate a trend, because trends dont cause temperatures to be what they are.”
But they used to test model predictions/projections. I would think you would want to do that.
Natural trends come in any length. We have some idea of what may cause some of them. But to understand new causes of trends its usually advisable to understand old causes or you are apt to get a bit mixed up. . . .like an old man who keeps forgetting stuff.
Chic Bowdrie
” Is it too early to say the pause is back? ”
The trend from January 1999 till April 2020:
0.16 ± 0.02 C / decade
The trend from January 2009 till April 2020:
0.34 ± 0.04 C / decade
What kind of ‘pause’ do you exactly mean?
Rgds
J.-P. D.
The one he asked about?
binny…”The trend from January 1999 till April 2020:
0.16 0.02 C / decade
The trend from January 2009 till April 2020:
0.34 0.04 C / decade”
****
It would be nice if you’d put away your Excel spreadsheet and ‘LOOK’ at what has been going on. There was a flat trend from 1999 – 2015 and it is ingenuous to claim a 0.16C trend from 1999 or a 0.4C trend since 2008.
You really don’t understand statistics and where they apply.
“looking” doesn’t replace calculating
Robertson
You are the dumbest, most ignorant and most pretentious person.
Stop your stupid denial of evidence!
J.-P. D.
Bindidon says:
May 2, 2020 at 2:12 AM
Robertson
You are the dumbest, most ignorant and most pretentious person.
Stop your stupid denial of evidence!
———————
what evidence?
Sorry, No warming from 1980-1997
https://i.postimg.cc/fyv8vcRh/RSS_V4_before_El_Nino.png
No warming from 2001-2015
https://i.postimg.cc/SxQy4C6M/RSS_V4_2001_-_2015.png
Having to rely on El Nino events to create a trend is just really bad propaganda non-science.
Why do you do it then?
http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/results-plot-volcanoes.jpg
Ok Spike55, want to remove ENSO effects without bias?
Here’s what you get for RSS.
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/iadded1_12month_low-pass_box.png
FYI, this is done by correlating RSS to nino3.4 shifted by 4 months, then creating a new series with correlated portion removed.
Notice 1991-1996 dip period of volcano is not corrected, but it could be.
Nate: I realize that RSS probably went from you most hated temperature service to one of your favorites after the big adjustment.
But bottom line is while RSS offers up an alternative reality in satellite temperature recording it is largely based upon climate modeling to provide for satellite drift. Thats fine and Roy is good with it though he prefers the UAH method of relying on improvements in satellite technology (Cadillac quality).
But what arises out of RSS using climate models to adjust their temperature record makes them less qualified as a means of vetting the climate models and more particularly explanations for model inaccuracies. Most of the surface records have traveled this route with climate model sea level rise having downstream effects on ocean temperatures. Now none of that means the records are wrong, it only means one cannot consider them independent for the purpose of vetting what is really happening with heat accumulation on our planet. Politics is always pushing for a single mind set for obvious reasons. Science is supposed to rise above that.
“But what arises out of RSS using climate models to adjust their temperature record makes them less qualified as a means of vetting the climate models and more particularly explanations for model inaccuracies. ”
Youre eating up propaganda on denialist blogs.
Totally wrong description of what theve done.
You’re not qualified to judge that RSS is ‘less qualified’.
But that never stops you.
RSSv4 does not use a climate or global circulation model to make adjustments.
RSSv3 did. The academic community criticized the method so they changed it. The v4 method says that the v3 method was underestimating the warming.
hmmmmm, you don’t think academic criticism and matching to model output had anything to do with the decision to rely on out-of-date technology?
bill,
First…I think you’re playing too loose with the term “model”. RSSv4 still uses a model for the diurnal correction just as UAH uses a model to make the same correction. It’s just that RSSv4 uses a different kind of model as compared to RSSv3. Remember…a model is a collection of rules, procedures, and algorithms which provides useful insights about the nature of reality. It doesn’t have to be a GCM.
Second…RSSv3 was not matching to the global circulation model output. It was using the GCM computed diurnal trajectory at each grid cell to estimate the correction factor.
Third…I’m not sure what is out-of-date here. The criticism wasn’t that RSSv3 was using out-of-date technology. The criticism was that the approach RSS took at the time was thought to have substituded one bias for another. They listened to the community and changed their approach.
Let us add for the dumbest that any spreadsheet will show us, for 1999-2015, a UAH6.0 LT trend of
0.06 ± 0.02 C / decade. Low for sure! But flat??
The flat trend in fact is rather for 1998-2015:
-0.01 ± 0.02 C / decade.
Why this? Simply because the period now includes all anomalies since January 1998, what lets the period start with very high values, and thus reduce the trend.
The inverse would happen if, while starting with 1999, I would include the year 2016, containing the highest anomalies since December 1978, what increases the trend, which then becomes
0.13 ± 0.02 C / decade.
But all these trends can’t invalidate those computed for the periods since 1999 resp. 2009.
Unlike Robertson, a spreadsheet doesn’t do eye-balling and guessing.
It simply computes trends according to theories developed by Gauss 200 years ago… and used by Roy Spencer as well.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon,
“What kind of pause do you exactly mean?”
I know the trend analysis is important to you and others. I was hinting at the possibility it is a meaningless exercise, because a trend doesn’t know the future, does it?
Chic Bowdrie
” … because a trend doesn’t know the future, does it? ”
I’m afraid you can’t imagine how much trends are used worldwide in many disciplines to compute estimates for the immediate future.
I don’t mean polynomials nor running means, let alone these toy-like linear trends.
Maybe you go just a tiny bit into medicine stats?
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.22.20075705v1.full.pdf
Might help.
J.-P. D.
Chic,
Statistical models are used ubiquitously in nearly all disciplines of science to predict the future.
The medical field and quantum mechanics are examples of disciplines that are almost entirely reliant on statistical models to predict outcomes over large populations.
And although a linear/exponential regression is but a trivial statistical model it is certainly better at predicting the future than persistence, random guesses, etc.
Has a century-long trend ever predicted a future century-long trend correctly? How many 30-year trends predicted a future 30-year trend?
bdgwx says:
Chic,
Statistical models are used ubiquitously in nearly all disciplines of science to predict the future.
The medical field and quantum mechanics are examples of disciplines that are almost entirely reliant on statistical models to predict outcomes over large populations.
And although a linear/exponential regression is but a trivial statistical model it is certainly better at predicting the future than persistence, random guesses, etc.
——————————————
The medical field observes many outcomes before approving a medication or medical treatment bdgwx.
Repetitive validating observations are necessary before you bet the farm on it.
Since climate science isn’t yet into any form of repetitive validation. . . .even Richard Lindzen suggests they pull the plug on the entire exercise and instead focus on primary research.
To give a parallel to the modeling exercise its like real estate investors investing in developments. They use models, observe a steady increase in absorp-tion and prices, and double/triple/quadruple down on their efforts to make money. Thats why nearly 100% of major real estate investors have declared bankruptcy at some point in time.
Hi bohous,
I believe the length of this 3.6 wave is very typical. Can you see my post here?
https://www.facebook.com/100000276969216/posts/3176979828987885/?d=n
Note the 3.6 year cycle is 1/3rd of a solar cycle. Not only are we headed for the down beat of the 3.6 year cycle, but we are also headed for the down beat of the 11 year cycle which occurs approximately 3.6 years offset from the solar minimum. The 11 year cycle is not enough to explain the linear trend you observed. In actuality, the tropics have a very complex 42 year cycle as well, or 4 solar cycles. The amplitude of each part of the 3 wave pattern that occurs each 11 years can be predicted. The first wave I’ve assigned red, the 2nd green, third blue. They follow a pattern like this: low, mid, high, mid, low. Blue is the strongest wave. Red is 3.6 years offset from it. Green is offset by 1 2/3rds solar cycle. We are actually coming off of blue low right now. Next is red low which is the weakest wave. Using this pattern, we can predict that the 42 year cycle will bottom in approximately 12-13 years.
Not coincidentally, the 60 year cycle is also getting ready to drop. It was the aligned 60 and 42 year cycles that caused the modern maximum in the first place.
I confirmed this low / mid / high / mid / low pattern goes back to the 1800s using HADSTT3 data.
You can observe the 60 year cycle with the greatest clarity in the AMO.
https://www.facebook.com/100000276969216/posts/3130071703678698/?d=n
beautiful, perfect example of numerology in its purest sense
Haha – indeed, that is exactly what it is: +1
john nash would be envious
Not sure what that is meant to mean.
Just David being David.
What is the global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly? How is it calculated and is it a meaning statistical measure?
Joel Brown
A layman’s (!) opinion: UAH data for one year is represented by 12 monthly grids of 72 latitude bands, each containing 144 longitude cells. The 3 northernmost and southernmost latitude bands in the grids do not contain valuable data.
For each cell, the monthly average for the reference period (currently 1981-2010) is computed, and the monthly cell anomalies are obtained by subtracting this monthly average from the absolute data.
Then the global monthly anomalies are computed by averaging all cells in each latitude band, and finally performing a cosine-weighting over all latitude bands.
Anomaly data for e.g. the year 2019:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/tltmonamg.2019_6.0
Monthly cell averages for the reference period:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/tltmonacg_6.0
AFAIK the original, absolute temperatures are not visible in the directory.
Rgds
J.-P. D.
Lower tropospheric temperatures are derived from measuring the intensity of microwave radiance of oxygen molecules by instruments on board satellites looking Earthward. Satellites scan the globe and get near full coverage over a few days. The highest latitudes at the poles are not covered. The radiance measurements are mathematically converted into temperature.
The instruments read very deep swathes of the atmosphere. The lower tropospheric temperature is a swathe about 12 kilometers deep, weighted most strongly at about 3km altitude.
https://tinyurl.com/yc2urzmh
The curve marked TLT (Temperature Lower Troposphere) shows what weighting is given to various layers of the atmosphere for the lower tropospheric temperature estimate.
barry…”The curve marked TLT (Temperature Lower Troposphere) shows what weighting is given to various layers of the atmosphere for the lower tropospheric temperature estimate”.
Where did you dig up that propaganda? Here’s the AMSU weighting curves by channel:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/AMSU-weighting-functions_fig9_252235249
Note that 1000 mb is approx 1 atm = surface level. Also note that channels 3,4 and 5 intercept the surface. That means they are capable of measuring oxygen emissions right to the surface.
Which channels are used for TLT, Robertson? Do you actually know? You don’t, do you?
If you can read a URL, you will know where I got the graph from. Jesus, grow a brain. Use it to work out where I got this graph from.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UT-weighting-function.png
Observe what the Lower Troposphere measurement covers – about 12km depth, with strongest weighting at 3km altitude.
I don’t think you have a clue about the details of satellite measurements of global temperature.
barry
When I see Robertson’s blah blah
” That means they are capable of measuring oxygen emissions right to the surface. ”
I get a big laugh.
Roy Spencer has himself explained years ago that between ‘measuring oxygen emissions’ and presenting their transformation into absolute temperatures, there is sometimes a gap.
And the gap here is the ocean: O2 emissions above its surface in the 60 GHz band are subject to extreme bias.
This is the reason why UAH6.0 LT does NOT take surface temperature computations into account.
Unfortunately I forgot to sync Firefox at that time and the link was lost.
Another indication of measurable but useless data is all places in the lower troposphere that are above high altitude surfaces (e.g. the Andes, the Himalaya, the Tibetan Plateau, etc.).
J.-P. D.
barry
A further interesting point concerning measurability vs. usefulness is the difference in handling pole-near latitude bands between UAH6.0 and UAH5.6.
If you look at UAH’s grid data in both contexts, you will see that while UAH6.0’s 2.5-degree grid does not contain valid data for 82.5N-90N or 82.5S-90S, UAH5.6 however did very well.
Please compare e.g.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/tltmonamg.2016_6.0
with
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltmonamg.2016_5.6
You can see that the grid of the 5.6 revision encompasses the entire sphere from 90N till 90S.
J.-P. D.
Actually, I can’t see 5.6 – it’s not opening wiith regular applications.
But I believe that 5.6 also had the same coverage of the globe. There might be data, but I don’t think it was used. See the figures at the bottom of the 5.6 regional page.
https://tinyurl.com/y92yznkq
Not sure that even they are correct, though. I remember at one point UAH (or RSS) had slightly different coverage over the S Pole as N Pole, one extending to 85, and the other to 82.5. Long time since I’ve seen those figures though.
barry
” See the figures at the bottom of the 5.6 regional page. ”
How funny! May I ask you to have a look at the bottom of the 6.0 regional page?
Huh, ironically the opposite. I don’t know if I’ve ever seen the coverage put right on those pages, but I’m very confident that 5.6 did not have complete global coverage.
barry, please stop trolling.
The important thing to note is that the future is unpredictable because we don’t understand the nature of geothermal.
http://phzoe.com/2020/04/29/the-irrelevance-of-geothermal-heat-flux/
It’s Bob Phin again playing the role of his illusory wife.
Minibrain,
And people should care because . . . ?
No one cares about Bob Phin and his alter egos. Good pickup.
Zoe,
Im puzzled with
‘As you can see all of these profiles have the same geothermal heat flux (CF), and all of them produce a very different emergent flux (EF) out of the surface.’
How do you think 96 mW/m^2 can PRODUCE EF >> 96 mW/m^2???
Des, please stop trolling.
zoe…”The important thing to note is that the future is unpredictable because we dont understand the nature of geothermal”.
The alarmist clowns have little ability to comprehend anything more than a few words, so when you talk about issues outside their ken, they react with disdain.
No one knows the cumulative effects of geothermal activity over millions of years. I think that’s especially true for warming of the oceans.
Of course, you were right to claim the 340 watts back-radiation is a scam. It has never been measured and Kiehle-Trenberth admitted they made it up.
Dr. Spencer and Dr. Christy are confirming what I’ve thought for a long time. The global mean temperature warms and cools, warms and cools, warms and cools. And over various periods of time. What I find quite peculiar is there are a whole bunch of people who don’t agree with that concept.
By the way, there is a great new documentary film by Michael Moore called “Planet of the Humans.” It is available for free on YouTube. It is about what a farce green energy is. The concluding statement in the film is telling. “The CO2 molecule is not destroying the environment. It is us.”
Dr. Michael Mann has already thrown a conniption fit over it. Many liberals want the film banned!
Rob Mitchell
If the global mean temperature would warm and cool, warm and cool, warm and cool, then the trend over 1979-2020 would be 0.0 C / decade, and not 0.14 C.
The last anomaly below 0 C wrt the mean of 1981-2010 was, if I well do remember, that of March 2012, i.e. about 100 months ago.
It’s as simple as that.
And as simple as you?
binny…”The last anomaly below 0 C wrt the mean of 1981-2010 was, if I well do remember, that of March 2012, i.e. about 100 months ago”.
What Rob is trying to say is that it could very well go back below the baseline, we don’t know. I know that’s something a butt-kisser to authority like you cannot comprehend.
why would
it go back below baseline?
Robertson
You are such an ignorant of simplest facts:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2020/april2020/202004_bar.png
What does that matter if in a near future a few anomalies go below 0.0 C? What would that change to the trend?
Fact is, Robertson, that we had nearly 100 months above average.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon, why do you think global temperature rises and falls should all average out in just the previous 41 years? I don’t think there is any one regular climate period one can pinpoint. There could be a 5 decade warming period followed by a 3 decade cooling one, or vice-versa. You don’t actually think like Bill Nye that there is something unusual about the “rate of warming” during the past 4 decades do you?
the film is full of errors. many have and are pointing these out. you can start here –
https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2020/04/30/misinformation-in-planet-of-the-humans/
And if I choose not to?
No one can force you to open up your mind. You are free to choose to ignore information you don’t like.
Tim, please stop trolling.
Gore & Co., those who are devout believers in green energy are the ones most upset with the film. And the reason being is that the film is revealing what goes into producing green energy. The vast majority of the public has no idea about all of the mining that is necessary to produce solar panels and batteries for electric vehicles. They are also not aware that wind and solar requires a backup coal/natural gas plant built to support the renewables. Wind and solar energy fluctuates, and a steady source of energy has to be available to make up for the periods of no wind or no sunshine. This film is an eye-opener for progressives because they’ve always believed renewables will save the planet.
rob…”Dr. Michael Mann has already thrown a conniption fit over it”.
Please don’t call it Dr., it makes it sound like it has a clue about what it is doing. After making an utter fool of itself with the hockey stick nonsense, it got caught making a bigger fool of itself in the Climategate email scandal. Then it offered chauvinist comments about Dr. Judith Curry when she became skeptical of alarmists ppopaganda.
mann just elected to nas
Is Michael “Piltdown” Mann still claiming to be a Nobel Prize winner?
Delighted to report that Dr. Mann has just been elected to the NAS. You can congratulate him on Twitter.
Well Gordo, maybe we should elevate Michael Mann a little bit above the level of “it.”
But I certainly understand your point. The way he behaved during congressional testimony while Dr. Curry was there was an absolute disgrace. Dr. Christy was there as well.
rob…”…there is a great new documentary film by Michael Moore called Planet of the Humans.
It has been banned by youtube, the eco-weenies are having a hysterical reaction over it. Don’t know why. It reveals what we all need to know, that we are so stuck in our belief systems that green energy will save us that we are deluded to the truth that we are seriously overly populated and that our needs are far too great to be sustainable.
The movie also reveals the truth that green energy is highly dependent on fossil fuels and cannot meet the demands of our power grids. So greenies have given their blessing to natural gas and biomass, which replaces coal with trees. That’s right, the greenies think it’s OK to burn trees because they are sustainable!!!
Duh!! If every tree in the US was burned for one year it would barely meet the needs of the US power demand.
https://energynow.ca/2020/04/watch-michael-moores-much-needed-documentary-planet-of-the-humans-looks-at-the-ugly-truths-about-renewable-energy/
Yes, if new technology is not immediately perfect you must give up completely and never fix it.
Reality and the models continue to diverge at an alarming rate. ( Well alarming for solar power makers at least )
how so?
Why do you ask, troll?
i want to know how reality and models
are diverging, of course
https://bit.ly/2yh0qgw
i meant something serious, not a single random uncited figure
Gormless,
Can’t you look it up, troll?
you’re all mouth
got anything useful to say? anything scientific to offer?
Gore & Co is a classic debil who can only judge the chart by who posted it , not by what it contains
What it contains is a pair of lies.
(i) It refers to the 1951-1980 mean, which means they are using GISS data. GISS data shows that 2019 was 0.98C warmer than that mean, not less than 0.6 as the graph shows.
(ii) It says “you should be here”, pointing at the worst-case scenario. It should be highlighting the RANGE between extreme values. +0.98 is right in the middle of that range.
So it turns out that judging the content and judging the poster led to exactly the same conclusion. Go figure.
Eben,
We “should” be at a point somewhere between scenario C and B.
When Hansen’s 1988 model was ran with human emissions that actually occurred the result was nearly indistinguishable from observations.
What does that tell us? The physics programmed into 30 year old models is pretty good and that our assumptions of human behavior are poor.
You need to ask the author of the graph to fix the items Midas pointed out. Once that is done please have him/her present it for further review.
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
Stevek said: Reality and the models continue to diverge at an alarming rate.
No they don’t.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GL085378
bdg…”Stevek said: Reality and the models continue to diverge at an alarming rate.
No they dont”.
Get serious bdg, that paper is co-authored by Gavin Schmidt the mathematician and climate modeler.
grobertson doesnt deserve to lick gavin’s boots
So no criticism of methods or data in the paper, just who was a co-author.
Hmm, that seems to be a recognized fallacy, I wonder if Gordon can recognize the fallacy he is using.
David, blob, please stop trolling.
Due to a small drop of 0.38 C within two months, the zero-relative comparison of the anomalies around the two major El Nino periods (Jan 1997-Apr 2002 vs. Jan 2015-Apr 2020) shows of course a corresponding drop:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/11H1Y959how-bVRQLkUW2mV5OyIBty5Ra/view
J.-P. D.
We need some slicers and dicers in here
For more than 10 years I have been plotting the UAH temperatures against the Southern Oscillation Index from the Queensland government. The plot imposes a four-month shift between the SOI and temperature.
You can find the plot here: http://www.bryanleyland.co.nz/global-temperature-prediction.html
Correlation doesn’t prove causation, but it seems to give a strong indication that the SOI has a considerable influence on world temperatures four months later.
Yes, El Nino and La Nina events affect global average temperature on interannual time scales. But, they do not explain the long-term warming trend.
The Elnino Lanina cycles causes global temperature swings around 1C on 3-5 years scale
The multidecadal oscillations causes the same 1C swings on about 80 years cycles
The UAH data set contains exactly one half of AMO cycle starting from bottom to top peak at present,
https://bit.ly/2VYUdPH
this is why no one considers 3-5 years to be “climate”, but only the average of 30 or more years
Are you totally dense or what ?
Eben
UAH global annual averages for the last decade:
2010 … 0.33
2011 … 0.02
2012 … 0.05
2013 … 0.14
2014 … 0.18
2015 … 0.27
2016 … 0.53
2017 … 0.40
2018 … 0.23
2019 … 0.44
Would you please find me a 1C swing in that data.
So, you got a “cheat” on predicting next month’s global temperature?
Is going to down or up?
So, generally, the Southern Hemisphere is about 1 C colder than Northern Hemisphere. And Southern hemisphere warms Northern Hemisphere.
Or as said, the tropical ocean is heat engine of the world, but tropical ocean warms Northern Hemisphere, more than Southern Hemisphere. Or helps explain how something colder can apparently warm something warmer {the warmer tropical ocean warms both cooler hemispheres, but warms Northern more than Southern hemisphere}.
Why does tropical ocean warm northern Hemisphere more than Southern Hemisphere.
No doubt it complicated. But would say roughly, because, ocean warms land and there is more land in northern hemisphere.
And more interesting question is there variance or factors alter this, so northern hemisphere is warmed less or both hemispheres are more equally warmed by the heat engine of the world?
Bryan…”Correlation doesnt prove causation, but it seems to give a strong indication that the SOI has a considerable influence on world temperatures four months later”.
Thanks for the info Bryan.
how does the soi add heat to the ocean ?
And how does the SOI cause the stratosphere to cool?
David, bdgwx, please stop trolling.
“For more than 10 years I have been plotting the UAH temperatures against the Southern Oscillation Index..”
Man ……………get a life!
The trend is now +0.1351 with an error of 0.0068.
The trend line is at +0.33 so this month was 0.05 above the trend line.
Given that we are toeing the line of +0.13 and +0.14 and that the stratosphere has warmed in recent months I expect a drop back to +0.13/decade in the coming months.
This drop follows what I’ve been saying for a long time. All we have seen in recent years is the effect of natural factors such as ENSO pushing up global temperatures. There is no indication that the climate baseline has changed this century.
In April the effect of the ongoing Pacific El Nino and the winter AMO driven Arctic enhancement were both in effect. Next month the Arctic influence will likely fall again. Due to the lag that occurs with El Nino, we will continue to see those effects for a few more months even if it fades away.
My prediction for this month was .40-.45 so we got more cooling than I expected. Next month will probably be in the .30-.35 range.
Overall, if the ENSO returns to neutral we have a chance of returning to the 21st century baseline by September.
Compare the UAH 2001-2019 average to the UAH 1980-1999 average, and get back to be with that comparison. I suspect you won’t perform the calculation because you already know how the result will look.
Midas,
Why would anyone compare periods that are completely different? Most of your first period was during a -AMO while also containing both cooling major volcanic eruptions. The second period was during a +AMO. Did you intend to highlight the key reason why it has warmed?
Don’t you think you need to look for another excuse for the southern hemisphere and the tropics? And why didn’t you factor in the generally negative PDO from 1998 to 2014?
Midas, I see all you have is denial. The PDO usually shows up negative during La Nina events. When this is factored in the PDO was positive from 1976-2006, negative from 2006-2014, and then positive since 2014. What you just said was the PDO has produced a warming influence on global temperature for 80% of the last 40 years.
Thanks again for pointing out that natural factors explain much of the warming.
As I said, the PDO was negative from 1998 to 2014. For the first 19 years of the UAH record it was positive. It has been essentially neutral since then. So eff knows how you came up with that assessment.
Midas, the PDO was “generally” positive until 2006. Sorry, but you don’t get to change the data. And, you also want to ignore the more influential warm cycle, the AMO. Why is that? You appear to be in denial.
indication – ocean heat content increasing steadily year by year
How so?
G&C appears to think that ocean warming is caused by atmospheric CO2 increases. Yet, no evidence exists to support that conjecture. A more scientific view is that oceans have warmed naturally and the atmosphere has simply picked up some of that energy.
In fact, there is evidence that changes in ocean salinity could drive changes in the ocean current speeds which in turn could lead to warming (or cooling). See Thirumalai et al 2019.
there’s no evidence the ocean has warmed
“naturally”. none at all.
gore…”theres no evidence the ocean has warmed
naturally. none at all”.
The oceans have been recovering naturally since the end of the Little Ice Age circa 1850. There was a heck of a lot of ice created on the planet during the LIA from roughly 1400 – 1850. There were enormous glaciers created in the Alps alone. It takes a long time to melt those glaciers given new winter deposits of snow and the oceans cooled significantly during that period.
Cooler oceans = less CO2 in the atmosphere but the IPCC missed that one when they set a baseline of 270 ppmv based on ice cores in Antarctica. Why did they not take samples from ice cores in the Alps where CO2 levels were likely higher.
same – theres no evidence that the ocean has warmed
naturally, or known causative factor that would force it
There is no evidence the ocean has warmed at all. Just the usual dreams.
G&C, did you read the reference I provided you? That is what is known as “evidence”. It may only be a start but it is evidence. What is it with true believers? All you have is denial.
richard…”G&C appears to think that ocean warming is caused by atmospheric CO2 increases. Yet, no evidence exists to support that conjecture. A more scientific view is that oceans have warmed naturally and the atmosphere has simply picked up some of that energy”.
Don’t forget recovery from the Little Ice Age.
there is no physics process known as “recovery”
GR
What factors aided this “recovery”?
In answering, remember that the LIA began centuries before the Maunder minimum.
Gordon,
I agree that there has been 300+ years of warming that cannot be explained by CO2 increases. The reference I provided does hint at one possible cause of this recovery. That is, changes in precipitation in the Amazon/Congo basins leading to ocean salinity changes.
What drove these rainfall changes could be solar related. Changes in the distribution of energy in solar radiation frequencies such as described in Lean 2018 are one possibility.
I always find it interesting that when anything other than man made emissions provide evidence for climate effects, all we see from one specific set of commentators is denial. No interest in real science.
“Overall, if the ENSO returns to neutral we have a chance of returning to the 21st century baseline by September.”
Baseline for UAH6.0 is 1981 to 2010. What is the “21st century baseline?”
barry, please stop trolling.
If that were true, you would expect that my predictions would not be accurate when in fact they have been very accurate. I called the feb peak the top of the 3.6 cycle. Was there anyone else here that predicted that? Go back and check.
Midas you never respond to my data, proposed cycles directly. You just like to through the same tired argument at me. Unqualified, numerology, heres an article, your not the expert. As if this will have any effect on my opinion which is rooted in the study of the actual data.
your opinion is made up in imagined cycles and phases and colors, almost all without any physical basis (except the 11yr cycle)
Go away, troll.
scott r…”Midas you never respond to my data, proposed cycles directly”.
Midas is a classic troll. Ignore it.
SR
What is preventing you from publishing and getting your work peer-reviewed? And not one of those drive-by reviews.
Go away troll!
Go away Mike Flynn!
Des, please stop trolling.
I have no idea why this comment appeared here. Was directed in response to Midas upthread.
My husband helped me get started with youtube comments, but I’ve been going on my own for two years.
I’ve never heard of a male ego doing so much novel work in his wife’s name.
Why wouldn’t he want the credit?
Are you atttacted to me, but don’t want to be or do you doubt female intelligence. What’s the story?
Midas,
My husband helped me get started with youtube comments, but Ive been going on my own for two years.
Ive never heard of a male ego doing so much novel work in his wifes name.
Why wouldnt he want the credit?
Are you atttacted to me, but dont want to be or do you doubt female intelligence. Whats the story?
It has nothing to do with male-female, S4B.
It has to do with the fact that both “individuals” use EXACTLY the same language. And the fact that once “Zoe” appeared, Bob completely vanished.
I can’t make posts below main level. Buggy blog.
“We are at the same temperature as early 1999.”
No we’re not.
1999
Jan 0.06
Feb 0.17
Mar -0.08
Apr 0.01
2020
Jan 0.57
Feb 0.76
Mar 0.48
Apr 0.38
The opening of 2020 was closer to the temperatures at the peak of the 1998 el Nino, and Feb 2020 was warmer than any month in 1998.
1998
Mar 0.47
Apr 0.74
May 0.64
Jun 0.57
Of course, small samples of data points say nothing about the overall trend. The linear trend since January 1999 is 0.16 C/decade.
And this is based on UAH6.0 lower troposphere temperature data, which has the lowest long term trends of all the global temperature data sets.
Lower bound and upper bound. Even going with lower, which is likely more accurate, until upper is proven means a warming climate likely above chance.
Sorry Barry,
until you factor out natural climate factors quoting comparison numbers is completely useless. In 1998 we had the super El Nino, in 2020 we have the ice effects of the +AMO, a weak El Nino and the dissipation of the Pacific blob.
You then talk about a “trend” starting with a 3 year La Nina and ending with a period that contains El Nino conditions for 6 out of 7 years. Did you really mean to do something so silly? Did you really think you were going to influence anyone with that nonsense?
Of course, living in denial of natural climate factors is common among a certain set of commentators.
“until you factor out natural climate factors quoting comparison numbers is completely useless”
Be sure to mention that to Scott R, who made the comparison that I replied to. And which he got wrong, which was the point of my reply.
All the periods were based on Scott’s choices. I trust you will enlighten him with your wisdom.
barry, please stop trolling.
For me, the UAH L. Trop is the best data to understand global warming because it is not tied to any climate model and satellites are better than the trash thermometers that have some el nino and not others. Also, it is apparent warming is a step function defined with excursions at major El Nino events and thus I hypothesize another long hiatus before the next step. It would be exciting if the next step were to be negative (cooling) or minimal (hiatus).
In literature and popular culture the hysteria for climate is falling apart. Scientists are pointing out IPCC has stepped to far by adjusting sensitivity up in new models (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-0764-6), Michael Moore and Gibbs turned on the left in Planet of the Humans, which is a positive because I dont agree with their anti capitalism views, but I have real respect for them being consistent. Criticism from within always has more power.
I dont believe we can drift into a new dark age mostly because there are to many channels for free speach and distribution of power to citizens to close them all down. This virus will teach us to be more cautious onward of blindly following left media cries of a catastrophe and realising the reaction to the cries can be worse than the actual risk.
I don’t think UAH is the best. They are all estimates with strengths and weaknesses (using modeling doesn’t automatically confer weakness), abd UAH seems to be the biggest outlier. UAH data set has undergone the most significant changes out of all the major data sets (perhaps equalled by RSS in its latest revision). So non-modeling has not helped it have better data than the rest, otherwise those revisions should be very minor, not the most profound of all others.
Yea I dont disagree. I think we all are entitled to choose our own data.
Barry, so you are a fan of leaving known errors in data? That is what you just told us. The UAH changes were to specific known orbital problems. Why would you want to leave in these kinds of known problems? Oh right, because it supports what you want to believe.
Face-palm.
“I think we all are entitled to choose our own data.”
Oh yes, whatever takes your fancy.
“Barry, so you are a fan of leaving known errors in data? That is what you just told us.”
Another brainless comment. I wrote what I wrote, not what you wrote.
Dunces begone.
Barry, your denial does not change the facts. You complained about the changes to the UAH data which were corrections for KNOWN problems. Yes, you wrote pure nonsense.
“You complained about the changes to the UAH data…”
No. I did not.
You just wrote pure nonsense. You can’t keep a conversation striaght in your head.
barry, please stop trolling.
For me, the UAH L. Trop is the best data to understand global warming because it is not tied to any climate model
There are many datasets that are not coupled with GCM models. Note that I’m assuming by “climate model” or you mean global circulation model.
and satellites are better than the trash thermometers
Can you provide us the RMS error on the monthly anomalies from UAH and compare it to those from traditional surface datasets, balloon datasets, and reanalysis datasets?
I’m not saying that error bars (precision) are the differences that swing me- open to hearing the answer from you though and more importantly why do error bars matter?
Also, I can describe the differences in accuracy between data types from memory so that any inconsistent understanding I have can be pointed out by you. It is always good to test the basis of an interpretation. 1. RSS diurnal adjustments are tied to a GCM but for the most part is very similar to UAH that adjusted independently of GCM. I have no issue with either but after last adjustments RSS went up, UAH went down. Will RSS now require an additional adjustment up because the GCM from IPCC increased sensitivity? 2. RSS or UAH vs balloons. Balloons are excellent precise calibration but not global view. Last I checked UAH was slightly better match but insignificant differences. 2.5. I am not familiar with the analysis outcomes other than what I read here on this page. 3. Thermometer data has been so heavily massaged since I have followed it. There was the boat correction adding warming to the trend by cooling pre 1950 oceans, then several more adjustments up for the trend including the Karl et al that removed 97 98 el nino in an attempt to add deep warming, but it is now looking internally inconsistent after the next big 16 17 el nino showed up in the data. This is not ideal to me and suggests the researchers adjusted incorrectly. 4. You forgot glacial ice extent (and eustacy). Very low precision but better accuracy for global warming as a proxy. It shows the 1940s warming, 1970s cooling, that bust thermometer global temperature data. It also shows the medieval warming busting hockey stick from one version of the tree ring interpretation. Glaciers and sea level indicate sea level was 6m to 8m higher just 125k yr ago at only 295 ppm CO2, likely busting high end GCM estimates and suggesting moderate to low climate sensitivity to CO2 are plausible. If earth was highly sensitive to CO2 then we would be seeing faster warming, rather than a gradual moderate increase observed in RSS and UAH. The ecstatic data provide a maximum constraint on climate sensitivity.
1. RSS used to use GCMs for diurnal corrections. They use a different technique now.
2. RSS is a better match to balloon datasets. https://tinyurl.com/v5ux75g
3. All data is “messaged”. UAH doesn’t even use thermometers. They have to use a model to first map microwave emissions to temperatures. Then they have to correct for certain biases and homogenize the data to produce a global mean. If “messaging” is offensive to you then you probably shouldn’t be relying on UAH. Regarding Karl…you should understand that his “messaging” actually works to reduce the global warming trend overall. Nevermind, that he is but one of many that publish such datasets. So if “messaging” is offensive to you then you’re going to have to live with the fact that the warming is more than is being officially reported.
4. This is a topic for another line of discussion. I don’t see how it is relevant to measuring the global mean temperature today.
Weren’t all the historical surface data sets that used thermometers
“adjusted” because they were supposedly unreliable? It doesn’t matter what the instrument is. If it doesn’t fit your agenda there will be something wrong with it.
Yes. All reputable surface station datasets that publish a global mean surface temperature for climate research make adjustments to produce a better result. Actually all datasets regardless of type make adjustments. This includes reanalysis, balloon, satellite, etc.
This is a good thing. You want datasets like UAH or whatever to make adjustments to fix bugs, problems with methodology, for quality control, instrument bias correction, urban heat island, homogenization, etc.
Aaron S
” 3. Thermometer data has been so heavily massaged since I have followed it. ”
Maybe you show some valuable sources (i.e. NOT WUWT, hockeyschtick, Gosselin, let alone Goddard).
” You forgot glacial ice extent (and eustacy). Very low precision but better accuracy for global warming as a proxy. It shows the 1940s warming, 1970s cooling, that bust thermometer global temperature data. ”
Here too, some sources would be interesting.
1. A graph showing global sea ice (Arctic + Antarctic, extent + area) out of the HadISST1 data set, starting in 1950:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bLBjhIqMG9pjCexciUIVWQox8x96eT1m/view
2. A graph showing PMSL tide gauge sea levels, starting in 1880:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dNTLShsJp2U9aBHuU3h4OL5tK32of9pg/view
There will be somewhere data showing how the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets behaved prior to the satellite era, but it is certainly in NetCDF format, not in ASCII. So I can’t show it here.
Where do you see in such data anything supporting your claim?
J.-P. D.
Bindidon,
On the Arctic/ Antarctic graph which color is which? Antarctic is mislabeled as red I believe but I think I understand and just want to confirm. Do you have the citations for each trend you shared? I’d love to see why the 1940s are deleted from the glacial ice trends because it is unfortunately not there and is the relevant period to my statement (especially given the symmetrical smoothing eliminates most of the 1950s data into one data point without a trend). It very well maybe just the start of both data sets started in the 50s, but it is an interesting point to start a data set so my gut tells me to explore more.
I definitely need to know more about the tide data too becuase tode trends are highly vulnerable to subsidence trends particularly in areas with modified alluvial drainage by engineers to control flooding that create meters of subsidence via reduction of overbank fine alluvial sediments. New Orleans and Mississippi River is an invalid set of data (as is most of Europe). The Mississippi Delta is a bird foot geometry for the reason it should have avulsed to fill in the subsidence gap years ago but Army core has prevented that. So it is easy to select tide data that confirms a narrative. Satellite tide data is the most relevant.
I am not familiar with the ice extent curves you cited, but I do see the 70s cooling as a surge in red (assumed arctic) and a lag before the blue (assumed Antarctic) sea ice extent growing. It will be interesting to see if the Antarctic cooling last decade is followed by an arctic ice growth in the next few years with a flip flop of lead an lag response.
Final point, shouldn’t sea ice highly correlate with temperatures? Especially if you weight Arctic Antarctic trends based on ice volume.
Interesting that the trend has finally ticked up above 0.13C/decade. I had been seeing 0.18C/decade from other series for a long time now, and wonder a little at the inconsistency. Still do, of course, but this reduces it a little.
In other news, the UK just went 18 days without coal being used for electricity generation, another record.
Also, I am delighted to report that Dr. Michael Mann has just been elected to the NAS. You can all congratulate him on Twitter. It is heartening that his decades-long contribution to such an important science is being recognised so clearly.
Unfortunately, climatology is as much a science as astrology. Its practitioners just make stuff up as they go along. Try finding climate forcings or climate sensitivity in a real physics textbook.
You can find hundreds of papers mentioning both climate forcings and climate sensitivity on real physics journal sites, not to mention the flagship journals “Nature” and “Science”. I might add that I also learned about the greenhouse effect and the adiabatic lapse rate in science classes during what American persons would call “high school”. During the 1970s.
I’m sure there are very basic reasons why the warming rates in different series would be different. I’ve just not been keeping fresh for many months and don’t like to make claims of excess precision. There are real scientists at the IPCC and now the NAS who do this sort of thing, after all.
It only takes seconds to think up a physical explanation if you put your mind to it, rather than trying to come up with unfounded accusations to throw at scientists. For instance, altitude: An atmosphere warming due to GHGs will necessarily be cooling at its upper extremes, so a warming trend will change at altitude until it inverts to a cooling trend. Mystery solved, and not a tinfoil hat in sight. See how easy?
So you agree that real physics textbooks do not contain the wondrous forcings or sensitivities? Any fool can publish in journals. Its called pay to publish. Nothing to do with advancing science in many cases! Climate science is as scientific as political science or social science.
“So you agree that real physics textbooks do not contain the wondrous forcings or sensitivities?”
Obviously not. I said they DID contain information about the same concepts in the 1970s. If that’s your idea of a valid inference it’s no wonder you have to resort to character assassination in lieu of argument.
“Any fool can publish in journals.”
Then you would seem eminently qualified. So go on and do so.
“Climate science is as scientific as political science or social science.”
Try telling the NAS. Or any high-school physics student. And no, I won’t take your word over theirs.
Elliott, please stop trolling.
The difference is not surprising. UAH measures temperature of the loswer atmosphere about 12km in height, surface records are of a band about 2 metres above ground level. Why would these different quantities perfectly match? And the processes to dervie a global average temperature are very, very different. Even UAH and RSS (both lower trop measurements) have different methods, if mostly the same data.
It’s not inconsistency. There is no benchmark.
Barry, have you ever heard of the adiabatic lapse rate? That is the physics that ties the lower Troposphere to the surface. Over an entire globe is will balance out any “inconsistency”.
Now add in that climate models tell us this part of the atmosphere should warm first and the only consistency is your denial of science.
Very little of what you write in reply to me has much to do with what I write. You seem to be fixated on ideas that you use other people’s comments to introduce. Have you been playing in the climate blogs again, little one?
Nothing about the adiabatic lapse rate forces tropospheric temps to perfectly mirror surface temps. For instance, there are fewer clouds 2 meters above the surface of the Earth. The surface temps are also more affected by surface albedo than the middle of the troposphere is. Global coverage between satellite and surface is different. Even the 2 satellite data sets have slightly different coverage. The list goes on. That’s even before we get to the very different methodologies, and neither you nor I are learned enough to determine which is better. For a start, you don’t know how UAH6.0 is derived – not to any granular understanding that would give you the insight to make a call. Of course, you would need a similarly granular understanding of how the other data sets are put together in order to make a cogent comparison. “They don’t use models” is certainly not a detailed comprehension of how the data is assembled to make a global temperature average.
People who prefer one data set over another are not at all skeptical, and the choice of UAH for AGW critics is lamely obvious.
barry, please stop trolling.
Barry, more of your typical unscientific denial. You tried to take local effects and claim they are global. Silly nonsense at best.
What’s obvious is you don’t want to accept you have been wrong for years.
“You tried to take local effects and claim they are global.”
Whaaaaat??
I said nothing like this. Are you smoking weed?
How ’bout them bristlecone pine tree rings? Or that brilliant use of Principal Components Analysis?
Yessir, that ol’ Nobel Prize winner, Michael “Piltdown” Mann has sure made a real contribution to the pseudoscience of climastrology.
So much so that he has just been elected to the NAS. Thank you for drawing attention to an opportunity to repeat this. If you think your contribution to science to exceed that of Dr. Mann then I suggest you take it up with his fellow Academy members.
Good to know you’re a fan of scientific fraud.
McIntyre and McKittrick caught Michael “Piltdown” Mann with his science pants around his ankles.
The MBH Hockey Stick was bogus.
“Piltdown” Mann was either hopelessly incompetent or a fraud.
The MBH98 temperature reconstruction is a real phenomenon. It has been corroborated many times by independent researchers and even different (non-dendrochronology) lines of evidence. M&M’s critique of MBH98 was flawed. The flaws were caught in peer review when submitted to a reputable journal, but M&M declined to fix them. You can read more about the technical details here. https://tinyurl.com/latmy8
M&M succeding in getting a paper published in Geophysical Research Letters in 2005, the year after that realclimate article.
https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/mcintyre-grl-2005.pdf
This paper was itself flawed, and MBH 98 and partuclarly 99 have subsequently been broadly corroborated by many other reconstructions by other groups using different proxies.
The ‘hockeystick’ canard is a zombie argument that no amount of head shots seems to put down.
Here are 33 papers on temperature reconstructions of the last 600 to 2000 years, including MBH, M&M and many more. First paper is from 1993, the most recent from 2019. Anyone can wise up if they have the patience.
https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/11/17/papers-on-reconstructions-of-modern-temperatures/
There are other reconstructions as well:
https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2010/02/24/papers-on-temperature-reconstructions-from-boreholes/
“The hockeystick canard is a zombie argument that no amount of head shots seems to put down.”
Barry you do have a way with words…sums it up nicely.
“Good to know youre a fan of scientific fraud.”
Good to know you’re a fan of making stuff up to smear scientists who are now members of the NAS in recognition of their contributions.
“McIntyre and McKittrick caught Michael ‘Piltdown’ Mann with his science pants around his ankles.”
Strangely, the NAS – the leading scientific body of the nation – seem to agree with me that it is McIntyre and McKittrick who are walking around tackle-out. YOU might have blind faith in a pair of frauds who are trying to smear a real scientist, but the nation’s leading scientists clearly do not. And as they have just elected Dr. Mann to their number I’d say your ideological convenience can safely be ignored.
So, again, take it up with the NAS. Or any of the dozens of teams who have used a score of lines of evidence to corroborate his work.
Actually, that’s not a bad yardstick. Let’s see you criticise EVEN ONE of the other proxy series that independently show the hockey stick shape without mentioning Dr. Mann’s name, if you think there’s any substance to your drivel.
“The MBH Hockey Stick was bogus.”
You are bogus. The hockey stick has been confirmed to the point that trying to smear one mann to make it go away is not merely dishonest but futile.
bdgwx, barry, Elliott, please stop trolling.
John Garrett
” Or that brilliant use of Principal Components Analysis? ”
Who are you to discredit Mann when using PCA?
Did you discredit Zharkova as well, who based her solar dynamo and GSM thing on the same PCA method?
*
” McIntyre and McKittrick caught Michael Piltdown Mann with his science pants around his ankles. ”
You can insult Mann as long as you want; but the two have been contradicted years ago by at least 5 different groups.
But that you prefer to keep silent about, hu?
My guess: you don’t understand even 0.5 % of that discussion.
J.-P. D.
“…In other news, the UK just went 18 days without coal being used for electricity generation, another record…”
Yeah, amidst warnings of blackouts and service disruptions !!
Wonderful!
Warnings by whom? You? Show me an actual blackout if you expect to be taken seriously.
As for “service disruptions”, what’s the weather like on your planet? People down here haven’t been getting to work much.
Here is Australia having blackouts imposed because they’ve really drunk the ‘green’ energy koolaid. You know, the stuff Michael Moore was complaining about. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DxZ1f_YzXQ
Sky “News” … hahaha.
John is correct. One warning comes from the National Grid itself, as reported in the Times. Headline: “Scoop: National Grid warns that Britain could be at risk of blackouts on Friday.” That would be next Friday (8th May).
h/t Paul Homewood
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/
Jim Ross
No idea what happens in Giant Britain or in down under…
https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/press-media/news/2019/Public-net-electricity-generation-in-germany-2019.html
We should be a lot farer than the current numbers show, but… one has to be patient.
That tweet of a screenshot yields a text which can be traced to a Murdoch rag known as “The Times”, once a decent paper. The full text is behind a paywall, but the accessible portion states:
“Britain could be at risk of blackouts as extremely low energy demand threatens to leave the electricity grid overwhelmed by surplus power.
“National Grid asked the regulator yesterday for emergency powers to switch off solar and wind farms to prevent the grid from being swamped on the May 8 bank holiday, when demand is expected to be especially low.”
So no, based on that source, John is not “right” in any useful sense. National Grid issued no such warning; it asked for the powers to AVERT the possibility of blackouts. Nor is the fact of excess power from renewables particularly convenient to the denialist agenda in the first place: When seeking to claim that a climate disaster cannot be imminent because the measures needed to prevent it cannot provide enough capacity to support leisure activities, the danger that those measures might flood the grid with excess power is NOT the kind of argument you need.
Pro tip, Jim. Link to the article you are pointing people to, not just the home page. The top article drops away when the next one is posted, and few people will bother to trawl the site for your reference.
I bothered, and look what the article says:
“National Grid asked the regulator yesterday for emergency powers to switch off solar and wind farms to prevent the grid from being swamped on the May 8 bank holiday, when demand is expected to be especially low.”
So wind and solar might have put too much power to the grid in a low demand period.
What was your point, again?
“Britain could be at risk of blackouts as extremely low energy demand threatens to leave the electricity grid overwhelmed by surplus power.”
Not sure this fits the desired narrative that renewables cant provide enough reliable power….
Right now, wind is providing 2.21% of UK demand (gasp). Not sure that fits your narrative of “reliable” power. Thank goodness we still have significant CCGT deliverability (currently 46.8% of demand).
Thank science it wasn’t needed for 18 days running. And that’s just the most recent, record, contiguous time-period.
You’re already reduced to bleating about “warnings” that are, of course, not realised. (Although we had regular blackouts in my childhood when coal ruled the game, and they still happen routinely in regions threatened by natural disasters like tropical storms.) What are you going to fall back on in a few years when coal rarely needs cycling up at all?
“Right now, wind is providing 2.21% of UK demand (gasp).”
And renewables? Or did you think the shift of goalposts wouldn’t be noticed?
Not sure where you are getting that 2.2% Jim,
From Wiki:
“Wind power contributed 18% of UK electricity generation in 2018, making up 52% of electricity generation from renewable sources.”
Nate,
I was referring to actual supply at the time of my comment rather than some historical average figure. Data are shown and updated every 5 minutes here:
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
Wind was very light all day yesterday (high pressure system). You can view or download the data for yesterday if you want to check. Wind is currently 8.41% of demand. Solar is predictable in timing, but not in quantity (better today than yesterday). Apart from a small amount of hydro, the only “reliable” renewable source is biomass, currently running flat out at 3GW (10.66% of demand).
Wind does have the issue of intermittency, whereas other sources have their own issues of being polluting, costly, unsustainable, etc
Wind intermittency is somewhat predictable, daily and seasonally, as with solar.
Along with a smart grid, distributed diverse sources, more energy storage, I dont see this as a fundamentally insurmountable issue.
Nate – Far from it. It is merely the mirror of the problem of inflexibility in coal generation. One will always require technology to match supply to demand, whether one has to balance load or output. A degree of redundancy has always applied.
Elliot, cant tell what you disagree with?
Nate – Agreeing with you. (Although I like to disagree with someone at all times, it is impossible to differ with everyone when they take both positions on a dichotomy!)
I agree that it is far from fundamentally insurmountable. Just business as usual by other means.
Gore and co.
You made a statement “that without cooling the warming would be higher”
Isnt that like saying if we didnt pull the plug on a bath it would overflow.
The atmosphere is complex and exhibits both cooling and warming influences.
You cannot ignore cooling influences because it doesn’t fit your hypothesis.
Complex indeed.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget#/media/File%3AThe-NASA-Earth's-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg
When you put all cooling and warming influences together you still get warming.
EM,
what makes you think we even know all the “cooling and warming influences”? Since we’ve seen constant warming and cooling over historic periods we know that nature can provide them without any help from humans.
We can’t know for certain, but we can measure the overall budget of incoming and outgoing radiation. When all the known influences add up to the incoming flux minus the outgoing, representing a deficit for the known forcings, you at least know that your energy budget balances. From which it follows that any unknown influences add up to zero.
What is it that you do not know for certain? You seem very certain about rubbish fluxes, forcings, and all the other mumbo-jumbo. Duh.
“What is it that you do not know for certain?”
See the post that I replied to, rather than just mine in isolation. Duh.
In fact, no-one can know anything “for certain”, EXCEPT that no-one can know anything for certain. That’s an epistemic theorem, when working within the constraints of empiricism – the only constraints that matter aside from the proofs of mathematics in any useful pursuit like science.
I for one make an effort never to say anything beyond the limits of confidence that I can reasonably justify, so I tend to look things up or test them with a spreadsheet or whatever before offering anything as more than my own opinion. Any time you catch me exceeding that, feel free to point it out, but don’t believe for a minute that insulting Dr. Mann, talking about “the left” or any other such nonsense will suffice instead.
I suspect that you will never find an instance where I am not quoting easily-referred science, checkable arithmetic results or the open dishonesty of a denialist interlocutor. And I guarantee I’ll correct anything that can be shown to be false, once noticed. Mostly another and more numerate poster comes along with better and more quantitative support while the deniers are still trying to work out how to introduce Galileo or Stalin into their “argument”. I just try to shoot down the lies before they can get running.
Uncertainty is not a weakness. It is the foundation of science. It’s the person waving ultimate truths who is selling you someone else’s bridge.
“fluxes, forcings, and all the other mumbo-jumbo”
This is just a display of ignorance. Ignorance is not a sin, unless you choose to wallow in it like that. If you don’t know what I mean by a “flux” or a “forcing”, ASK.
I’m always happy to find new terms that eliminate the possibility of misunderstanding.
Elliott, please stop trolling.
“what makes you think we even know all the ‘cooling and warming influences’? Since weve seen constant warming and cooling over historic periods we know that nature can provide them without any help from humans”
But its not as if we dont understand anything, Richard. We’ve been able to understand and model weather, hurricanes, the global circulation pattern, ocean currents, and glacial cycles.
As for cooling periods, we understand that many of these are driven by volcanoes or the sun.
We can link some past climate warming episodes to GHG emissions from volcanoes.
There are still mysteries, but that’s no reason to dismiss what we do understand.
Was the context agents that have negative radiative forcing effects like aerosols?
For example…if human aerosols emissions decline then the net radiative forcing increases thus yielding a higher level of warming.
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
With a mass of 5.10^18kg and a thermal capacity of 1004J/kg/K, a 0.38K temperature decrease means a loss of 2.10^21J in 2592000s, an average outgoing power flux of 7,3.10^14W (730TW), an imbalance of -0,17W/m².
I love calculations like these. However, with 0.38K over 2592000s I actually get…
5.1e18 kg * 1004 J/kg/K * -0.38 K / 2592000 s / 510e12 m^2 = -1.47 W/m^2
Note that I used 510,000,000 km^2 or 510e12 m^2 for surface area.
To put this -1.47 W/m^2 into perspective the Earth energy imbalance has been about +0.6 W/m^2 over the last 30 years.
I said it in January: “Prepare for the collapse of temperatures.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/01/major-eruption-of-taal-volcano-in-philippines-in-progress/#comment-422497
What do you think will be the final rank of 2020 in terms of annual global mean surface temperature?
2020 will be colder than 2019 but warmer than 2021.
You could be right about that especially if a La Nina develops later this year.
Midas,
‘It has to do with the fact that both individuals use EXACTLY the same language.’
So you claim, without evidence. Robert curses a lot, and I don’t. Anyone can see that Bob is a lot more aggressive.
‘And the fact that once Zoe appeared, Bob completely vanished.’
Because Robert was showing me how to get started. Are you not capable of reading?
Robert went through internet commenting stage when he was a teen and young adult. He’s bored by it. Robert doesn’t like to write.
The fact is that you don’t wanna give a girl the credit she deserves. What’s the term for that?
Hi Sybil / Adam Stampler,
No, I don’t want to give a MAN credit he doesn’t deserve.
Apparently your alter ego was “showing you how to get started” for a number of years. Either that makes you either a very slow learner or a terrible liar. Take your pick.
Minibrain Midas is a troll. He seems obsessed with non-existent people. He is convinced I am someone else, and I cannot be bothered explaining the very obvious reason for his delusions. His Minibrain would be quite incapable of accepting facts. What a dill!
Hey Scott R
It has been suggested that I ask you how “Jupiter and Saturn cause the sun to move away”.
Please enlighten me.
You are a witless troll. Enlightened?
http://www.orbitsimulator.com/gravity/articles/ssbarycenter.html
When I first read of the near record-setting drop in the global anomaly for April, I thought it supported the global warmists’ argument, as less CO2 would have been spewed into the atmosphere with the COVID-19 induced recession. But then it occurred to me that the greenhouse effect was based on the TOTAL concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, which, I assume , would not have gone down in April, what with the long-life of CO2 up there; in fact, may have increased slightly, albeit less than in normal times. If this be the case, than the dramatic drop in temperature might arise from all the other pollutants in our dirty skies decreasing. Any logic in this? (Disclaimer: I am not a scientist, though I play one in my own living room.)
The monthly trend is only +0.001C per month.
The detrended monthly standard deviation is 0.18C.
So the monthly variability is 180 times the upward trend.
Surely that is enough to tell you that you can’t attribute a single monthly change to changes in CO2 levels.
Ken said: If this be the case, than the dramatic drop in temperature might arise from all the other pollutants in our dirty skies decreasing. Any logic in this?
Aerosols produces a net negative radiative force. Less aerosols yield a net positive change in aggregate raditative force. This would put an ever so slight upward pressure on the Earth energy imbalance. But like Midas said the variation in monthly anomalies is quite high so given the short duration and small magnitude of the affect this aerosol signal would easily get lost in the noise.
The April drop is likely to be associated with the warming stratosphere in the previous months. The leading hypothesis is that the Australian wildfires lofted anomalous aerosols into the stratosphere. Prior spikes in stratosphere temperatures have lead cooling in the troposphere. It can take a year or so for this aerosol induced warming/cooling of the stratosphere/troposphere to wane.
Complete rubbish, despite the climastrology jargon. Read some actual physics textbooks. Repetitively spouting nonsense wont make it come true.
Yet it has come true. Clearly they have read the physics with more care than you could muster.
Elliott, please stop trolling.
Positive anomaly of 0.38 C seems to be lower than my expectation.
I have expected hotter temperature as result of more solar radiation hitting on the earth, due to more clean air caused by widespread lockdown from the pandemic.
I’m glad its warming up 0.14C per decade.
Warmer is better. Anyone that doesn’t think so should experience frostbite in their toes and fingers.
Does everyone who lives in a snow-covered area get frostbite, or only “special” people?
Trolling, much?
English, perhaps?
“Warmer is better. Anyone that doesn’t think so” lives in Bangladesh or anywhere else between N-S 30 degrees latitude.
N,
Why would you think that? Ever seen pictures of severe frostbite? Due to cold? Mt Everest is about 28 degrees North. You might like to refine your silly assertion a little.
“Lives in Bangladesh or anywhere else in the 40%-odd of land vulnerable to desertification”. Happy?
There is a level of annual precipitation that is conventionally regarded as the limit below which cereals will not grow. Let’s say 250mm, as I cannot scare up the correct figure at short notice. I recently saw an interesting map plotting the 250mm precipitation line on a map of Eurasia and Africa. The line follows the borders of deserts, as you would imagine.
More interestingly, the line passes directly through almost all conflict zones in the region. Even more so, ALL US drone strikes in the region are so close to the line as to be inseparable by eye at that scale.
So warmer is not necessarily better, at least while water and food stress remain bigger threats to human life than mountaineering.
“Mt Everest is about 28 degrees North.” And no one lives on it.
The point, for the perpetually perplexed, is the Earth has a Equator to pole gradient in temperature. Humans and other life-forms have adapted to a range of temperatures.
The notion that increasing the temperature everywhere that humans live is BETTER, is a repeated meme here and makes no sense.
Indeed: https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020/04/28/1910114117
“We show that for thousands of years, humans have concentrated in a surprisingly narrow subset of Earths available climates, characterized by mean annual temperatures around ∼13 C. This distribution likely reflects a human temperature niche related to fundamental constraints. We demonstrate that depending on scenarios of population growth and warming, over the coming 50 y, 1 to 3 billion people are projected to be left outside the climate conditions that have served humanity well over the past 6,000 y. Absent climate mitigation or migration, a substantial part of humanity will be exposed to mean annual temperatures warmer than nearly anywhere today.”
They project a fair proportion of humanity enduring conditions hotter than today’s Sahara.
Elliott, please stop trolling.
I walked out of Carbon Management company in the Uk back in 2006 after I found out CO2 warming was a fraud, makes me laugh that the 10 other staff smoked and I was the only one who didn’t. They were raking it in earning about 500 a day per engineer and getting bonuses on top of bonuses for contributing nothing all paid for by UK tax’s Carbon trust quango.
Whatever site you are attempting to link to via your name hyperlink doesn’t exist.
And what does smoking have to do with anything when all cigarettes smoked around the world contribute only 1% of 1% of human CO2 emissions?
“I walked out of Carbon Management company in the Uk back in 2006 after I found out CO2 warming was a fraud”
Interesting way to excuse getting fired. I always say I thought the boss was a wanker.
Des, Elliott, please stop trolling.
http://phzoe.com/2020/05/03/co2-versus-global-covid19-response/
Hey Bob Phin – why would we expect CO2 concentrations to stop rising when we are still adding CO2 to the atmosphere?
Midas Minibrain,
Still obsessed with your delusions that people are not who they claim? You should use thicker tinfoil for your hat. Aliens have obviously occupied your skull!
Midas,
I don’t talk to rapists.
WTF are you smoking?
Des, please stop trolling.
Midas! What is your purpose here on this blog?
Why don’t you ask that of “Amazed” aka Mike Flynn?
The question still remains!
E,
And the answer will still remain elusive, I guess. Hes just a troll, and not a very good one, at that.
Evert Backstrom
And… what is here the purpose of people like
– Amazed, who accuses all commentators s/he dislikes to troll, i.e. to do exactly what s/he does all the time?
– Robertson, who discredits, denigrates, insults all people he either doesn’t (want to) understand or dislikes?
Sind Sie auf dem ‘rechten’ Auge blind, Herr Kommissar?
J.-P. D.
The difference between Midas and Amazed is clear. One is a classic troll pestering everybody. The other is singling out the troll so the rest of us don’t have to.
Chic Bowdrie
” The other is singling out the troll so the rest of us don’t have to. ”
It seems to me you have no problem with people like Amazed, Mike Flynn, Robertson, Eben & some others, who persist in insulting all people having a different meaning than their own…
Sind auch Sie auf dem ‘rechten’ Auge blind, Herr Bowdrie?
Weiter so!
J.-P. Dehottay
I didn’t ask for your opinions, I did exactly the opposite, Once you blatantly disregarded my request to keep your idiotic comments out of my posts you are free game, I will insult you any time I feel like to.
Eben – if you want the freedom to post your BS unchallenged then start your own blog and block everyone you don’t like. This is a public forum, and you have no business insisting people not reply. If you don’t like it, find the door.
Minibrain Midas,
If you are trying to convince others that CO2 has heating properties, you are not being very successful, are you? If you are trying to annoy others for fun, you overlook the fact that people might choose not to be annoyed, but rather to be slightly bemused at your silliness. Not terribly bright, are you?
Final two sentences right back at you.
Minibrain,
No doubt others will note your alarmist cherry-picking, troll.
B,
Why would any rational person choose to be insulted by anything I say? Do you think everyone is as weak minded as you? Grow a pair! Stand tall! Be proud!
Bindidong and Muflerboi the Two biggest trolls who troll every single threat posted in here now complaining about trolling.
I just wait to see who disappears in the next troll purge round
“One is a classic troll pestering everybody.”
I sincerely hope you mean Amazed-Mike-Flynn, the thrice-banned poster.
Regardless of team, he is the trolliest troll we have.
No. There is another.
(Watched The Empire Strikes Back last night)
barry, please stop trolling.
Heh Roy what is this ranked for April vs rest of Aprils>
NCEP CFSR was 2cnd warmest but still within a tenth of UAH ( you have the gold standard I watch the CFSR cause I can see what its estimating every day
1. 1998/4: +0.74
2. 2016/4: +0.73
3. 2019/4: +0.44
4. 2020/4: +0.38
Quick question…why do you refer to UAH as being the gold standard as opposed to some other dataset? What technical detail about it do you feel makes it superior to all others?
At least you can rule out the surface measurements. Read about it here: http://venturaphotonics.com/files/VPCN_004.1_WhatSurfT.pdf
Robertson’s ignorance concerning anomaly-based time series and trends
is simply horrifiying.
Let us review his nonsense:
“ How can anyone claim a 0.14C/decade linear ‘TRUE’ warming trend when 18 years was below average and another 18 years had a flat trend? What happens if the anomalies drop back to the baseline? How then will you calculate the trend?
These trends are not calculated using a best fit of the data over the entire range since that could not be done using end points between 1979 and 2020. They are calculated using algorithms that ignore the physical contexts. They operate on the data alone without consideration of the contexts from which the data came.
The only way a 0.14C trend could have been calculated for TRUE warming would have been a scenario in which the UAH trend began at the baseline in 1979 and continued upward till the trend line intercepted the y-axis after 40 years at 0.56C. That has not been the case. ”
*
1. My first question would be: Why doesn’t Robertson at least have the courage to seek an explicit confrontation with Roy Spencer, who precisely calculates and publishes the trend of 0.14 C / decade for his own data – what Robertson nonetheless allows himself to doubt?
Why does he not tell Roy Spencer that his trend computation is wrong?
*
2. Robertson has, though having been informed by many commentators in this blog, still no knowledge about how a linear trend is calculated.
Trends are based on ordinary least squares, and have nothing to do with any average, let alone with anomalies. They are exactly what he refuses to learn and accept: a best fit over a set of data points, e.g.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/14alPDag5YUJkhLqJZgfQjpTId6MN__DB/view
In this graph, only the data points are shown, and not the lines connecting them.
What Robertson doesn’t not understand (or, maybe, deliberately ignores) is that if another period was chosen to compute the anomalies out of the absolute data (e.g. 1990-2014 instead of 1981-2010), this would result in different anomalies, but the trend computed out of the new anomaly data points would keep the same.
This has been explained to him so many times that I suspect that he is repeating his nonsense endlessly in the hope to be considered an expert on the matter.
*
3. Maybe it helps if I show a reconstruction of UAH’s absolute data, together with the trend, this time computed out of the absolute data points:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1B2qDLO0T8ZO6IqduIdlppIoIAKSsDY7F/view
No red baseline here, and thus no rewarming below the baseline, no TRUE warming above the baseline. Only warming.
The trend line looks a bit flatter than in the anomaly chart, but the trends for Dec 1978 – Mar 2020 are nearly equal (0.135 C / decade for the anomalies, 0.133 C for the absolute values).
And of course: the trend for 1998-2015 is here absolutely flat as well, he he.
Maybe he understands now (or is willing to give up his nonsensical ideas). But maybe what he wrote will reappear unchanged at the next opportunity. So what!
J.-P. D.
P.S. For those who always refer to 2016 as the ‘Super El Nino year’: please notice that the highest absolute value (-7.35 C) is in July 1998, and not in 2016.
Pointless discussion, unless you believe that the future can be usefully predicted from a trend. The future is unknowable, my friend. It hasnt happened yet!
As usual: pointless, redundant reply which has not anything to do with my comment.
You remind me more and more of these little dogs that visit every tree to proudly get rid of a ‘small legacy’.
I enjoy!
B,
Your comment was taking someone to task about trends. Count the number of times the word trend appears. What was your point? If you agree that trends do not predict the future, why the pointless fixation with them?
Maybe you should stick to following dogs around, and examining their small legacies. As you said, you enjoy it.
svante…”He likes his PRATTs, for example that base lines are the gold standard for “true warming” (they are arbitrary)”.
Maybe you and Gore & Co. should read what real climate scientists have to say on that. I got my information on true warming after the 1998 EN from the UAH 33 year report. Furthermore, UAH has addressed the projected situation with no aerosol cooling, claiming the trend would have been 0.09C/decade.
The two of you need to take courses in statistics. If you have a trend below the baseline it means the anomalies are cooler than the baseline temperature. Without the aerosol cooling, the anomalies move toward the baseline making the trend lower, as claimed by UAH, not higher.
What is it about negative anomalies you don’t understand? A trend with negative anomalies does not indicate a warming of the atmosphere it indicates a recovery from cooling. That situation prevails till you reach the baseline then true warming begins.
UAH is perfectly right to claim a 0.014C/decade trend but they are smart enough to realize it means data beginning below the baseline and continuing through the baseline to warmer anomalies. That trend says nothing about global warming per se, it is a trend from cooler temps to warmer trends.
“That trend [0.014C/decade] says nothing about global warming per se, it is a trend from cooler temps to warmer trends.”
This baffles me. A trend from cooler temps to warmer temps is pretty much the *definition* of global warming over the period being studied.
The trend doesn’t say is *why* it warmed. Nor does the trend say what is “normal”. But it most definitely says the globe has warmed.
It could be — as you speculate — that temperatures in the 1980’s were cool and then there was “a recovery” back toward “normal”. It might be that the globe was “normal” in the 1980’s and then crept above “normal” in the next decades. It could also be that the 1980’s were already above “normal”, but temperatures rose even farther from there.
* ALL OF THESE would produce exactly the same graph in the top post.
* ALL OF THESE would start below the baseline and move above the baseline.
——————————-
“Furthermore, UAH has addressed the projected situation with no aerosol cooling, claiming the trend would have been 0.09C/decade.”
I have not read this report, but your description here does sound reasonable. *IF* the 1980’s were cooled an exceptionally large amount by aerosols (from pollution or volcanoes or any other source), then if we could somehow do a controlled experiment without those aerosols, the temperatures would be higher in the 1980s and the data would be higher (closer to the baseline). This would cause a decrease in the trend observed.
(Of course, that would also INCREASE the trend leading up to the 1980’s.)
Richard M…”Surface data sets are very poor and are not based on anything closely approaching science”.
The guy at chiefio exposed the fudging that goes on with surface temps. I mentioned how Bolivia has altitudes of over 15,000 feet, which would mean cooler temps. NOAA no longer lists Bolivia, rather they have fudged a temperature for Bolivia using an interpolation of areas around Bolivia at much lower temps.
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/gistemp/
Much more if you dig a bit.
Robert Ingersoll…”Accuracy of surface instrumental record now confirmed with satellite obvservations”.
You provide a link to a paper by the Mother of all Alarmists, Gavin Schmidt, head of NASA GISS. Schmidt is a mathematician who programs models with a warming positive feedback and CO2 with a fudged warming factor of 9% – 25%. In an attempt to explain positive feedback he failed to do it.
At the link below, scroll half the way down the page to the title ‘Gavin Schmidt on Positive Feedback’.
http://rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/11/gavin_schmidt_on_the_acquittal.html
He runs realclimate, the Mother of ALL Alarmist Sites, with his good buddy Michael Mann, who was noted in the Climategate email scandal as the author of ‘the trick’, a scam invented by Mann to hide declining temperatures. The Climategate emails reveal him vigorously trying to interfere with peer review. Meanwhile, back on the ranch at realclimate, Schmidt, the head of GISS, covered for him with lame excuses for why Mann was acting like an alarmist climate hooligan.
You won’t find any objective scientific evidence in an article by Schmidt that the satellite data is corroborating the fudged surface series, with GISS as one of the leading fudgers under Schmidt.
Nurse! Come quickly – Gordon is out of his restraints again !
Go away, silly troll.
… and his little side-kick is screeching again!
Go away, silly troll.
My apologies – somebody told him Michael Mann has been elected to the National Academy of Sciences. That has set him off again.
Ian…” somebody told him Michael Mann has been elected to the National Academy of Sciences. That has set him off again”.
Not surprising, if it’s true. NAS was once a prestigious organization with stringent entrance requirements. Then they made the mistake of allowing one climate alarmist into the fold. Then they spread like vermin to get more alarmists in.
If it is true, that Mann has been elected, NAS is lost. I could see Mann being elected to the climate alarmist clown-of-the year contest, but not NAS. Failed geologists should not be allowed into NAS.
Maybe….. just maybe….there are are people out there who are smarter than you and know what they are doing.
But then again, as somebody once noted, “It is fun being paranoid – you don’t have to take responsibility for your current woes. Just blame others.”
Ian…”Maybe….. just maybe….there are are people out there who are smarter than you and know what they are doing”.
One of those people is definitely not Michael Mann. And another is definitely not you since you support that misogynist twit.
You would never find me doing something as stupid as studying tree rings over a 1000 years to infer unprecedented warming in the 1990s, fudging the proxy data when it did not indicate what I expected, and especially not using one tree to cover an entire century. Mann is not worthy of being the janitor at NAS.
And I am not as stupid as those in the IPCC who rushed to embrace a study lead by a first year Ph.D, in geology of all sciences. There are smart geologists but the field tends to attract students looking for an easy degree.
“Failed geologists should not be allowed into NAS.”
And exactly what body stands above NAS in scientific reputation such as to permit it to dictate this to them?
elliot…”And exactly what body stands above NAS in scientific reputation such as to permit it to dictate this to them?”
You are talking about the former reputation of NAS. It is obviously now a retirement home for climate alarmists.
No, it’s obviously now a target for denialist smears because it has so decisively dismissed their earlier smear campaign against Dr. Mann. (By electing him a member, in case I forget to mention.)
Do you seriously believe that anyone is fooled by this transparent and increasingly ridiculous to defame every scientific body that lines up in favour of real science? By creationists and conspiracy theorists working for vested interests and political bodies, I might add.
Sorry, Ian.
Elliott, please stop trolling.
Robert Ingersoll…”Very sciency with intercept the y-axis, but seems confused on which axis that is”.
You are the one who is confused. A trend line over a range between a beginning y-axis and and ending y-axis could only intercept the y-axis. an intercept at the x-axis would make no sense.
You completely missed the point I was trying to make. If the UAH data over the range from 1979 can be expressed as a linear trend line of 0.14C/decade, it means the data points between 1979 and 2020 are being expressed as a straight line. I was trying to show the difference between a line extending from the x-axis at (1979,0) to a right-axis at (2020,5.6) which would have represented true warming.
However, the data begins below the x-axis which on the UAH graph is called the baseline, representing the global average from 1980 – 2010. It’s amazing how many wannabee statisticians on this blog fail to grasp that. The x-axis is that global average. Any anomalies below the baseline represent temperatures below the average.
The trend as a line is a function of x (y = f(x)). That means for each point on the x-axis there is a unique point on the y-axis corresponding to the x-point. The line is described by y = mx + b, where m is the slope of the line (change in y versus change in x) and b is the y-intercept. That intercept applies at x = 0 if the line passes through the y-axis at a point other than (0,0).
However, with a trend line, with the line extending through a range, as in the UAH graph from 1979 – 2020, you are concerned with where it intercepts both the left and right axes at either end of the range. I was referring to the left-most coordinate as (1979,0) and the right-most coordinate as (2020,5.6), or whatever value I used. I was using 5.6C as the right-most y-intercept based on 0.14C/decade x 4 decades.
There is no way a trend expressed as so many degrees /decade could be anything other than a straight line. Such a trend line is trying to make a best fit of a straight line through data points. On the other hand, Roy has kindly supplied a different type statistic called a running average, which smooths out the erratic data point anomalies and gives as a better picture of the trend.
Using that red curve, the running average, you can average the trend visually in a rough manner and see that several trends are apparent in the data. There is a rewarming trend from 1979 – 1998, a flat trend from 1998 – 2015, then two trends, at least from 2015 onward.
It’s obvious there has been a warming since 1979 but what does it mean? Many alarmists are claiming it as proof of CO2 warming yet how could CO2 cause an 18 year flat trend? Many of us see it as a natural cyclical trend that should eventually come back down to the baseline or below.
swannie…”The fact that there are more data points below the average in the beginning of the record and more above later just tells anyone whos listening that there warming going on. The trend calculation does not rely on the baseline in regard and the trend is the important variable, not this months particular value above (or below) the baseline.
Moron.”
You, of all people, should not be calling anyone a moron after your amazingly ignorant conclusions from experiments alleging the 2nd law of thermodynamics is wrong. It was blatantly obvious to anyone with a basic understanding of thermodynamics that you were mistaking a reverse transfer of heat (cold to hot), contradicting the 2nd law, with a reduced heat dissipation in a body causing that body to warm naturally toward its temperature with no dissipation.
With regard to your analysis of trends and baseline, they are just about equally ignorant. Since the baseline is also the x axis at y=0, the slope of the trend line has everything to do with the baseline. The anomalies are the departure from the baseline in the +/- y direction.
The trend ‘line’ is a function of x as in y = f(x). In this case x is a measure of time (months/years) and y is a measure of temperature. That is reflected in the measure of the trend line in degrees C/decade. Having established the baseline at y = 0 as the global average from 1981 – 2010, each anomaly is the departure from that average each month.
It’s painfully obvious that a positive trend line below y = 0, the global average, represents a recovery from cooling. As UAH have pointed out in the 33 year report, a trend line above the baseline is ‘TRUE’ warming.
Having established that, the true warming rose about 0.15C from 2000 – 2001 then the trend flattened for 15 years at that level. It was not till mid-2015 that the trend began to rise again, in conjunction with a major El Nino in early 2016. Then it became negative till mid-2018 when it became positive again.
It’s not possible based on the shortness of the UAH record to make claims about an overall global warming. Neither is it possible to get the degree of warming from the NOAA and Gistemp records since they are seriously fudged by climate alarmists.
As it stands, about all we can agree upon is that warming has occurred since the Little Ice Age that ended circa 1850. That warming is to be expected.
Gordo, you have no clue what the “base line” you refer to means. As you view the UAH graph at the top of this post, what you are seeing is the result of an an averaging process. Once the “raw” gridded data, in Kelvin, is processed, it is reduced to monthly zonally averaged data with averaging over some selected base period. But, to compare different latitudes and seasons, the seasonal cycle for each latitude zone is calculated and then subtracted from the monthly data for each year. The resulting anomalies can then be averaged over some range of latitude, such as the UAH 20S to 20N as Tropics or the 60N to 82.5N region called Arctic, averaged by weighting with the cosine of latitude to account for the reduction in area of each zone as latitude increases.
The resulting data sets, such as the MT or the TP, will exhibit a range of values on a scatter plot, with the center of the distribution being around the zero line of the graph. A trend line can then be calculated to fit the resulting data.
And, no, the GPE does not violate the 2nd Law and there’s no such thing as a “natural temperature” of a body as you allude to above.
swannie…”you have no clue what the base line you refer to means”.
As it states on the y-axis of the UAH graph, the baseline is the global average from 1981 – 2010. What is it about the simple definition you don’t understand? The anomalies are described as the ‘departure’ from that average.
And, yes, every body has a natural temperature when dissipation is total stopped. If you consider the 2N3055 power transistor it will reach a certain junction temperature at 25C ambient conditions. It will maintain a safe junction temperature as long as you allow as much heat to escape as what is introduced by the junction current. Heat in – heat out is the key.
If you suppress all dissipation, its temperature will rise to the temperature produced by electrons running through the semiconductor junction. If the temperature is too high, it will cause thermal runaway and the transistor will burn up. So, we need to find a current it can sustain just before thermal runaway.
I call that temperature its natural temperature ‘with all dissipation suppressed’. Once you supply a means of radiative dissipation, conductive and convective dissipation, the temperature would drop to a certain temperature which it would maintain under those conditions of dissipation. If you come along and block any one of those means of dissipation the temperature will increase toward the natural temperature I described.
That’s what happened in your experiment. The BP had established a temperature with the amount of free radiation it had balancing the heat input. When you raised the GP right in front of it, you blocked that free radiation and the BP reacted by warming. It had nothing to do with back radiation from the colder GP as you claimed, the temperature rise was due only to the effect of the heating supplied.
Since you can’t stop an object from radiating based on its temperature and emissivity, there is no way to “block radiative dissipation”.
However, further testing by Hughes confirmed that the BP does not rise in temperature when a GP is added.
Case closed.
Case closed that Hughes is an incompetent experimentalist. Sophist test results reported on a blog disproving the 1LOT and/or 2LOT will not work to convince anyone in the field, except the sophists.
When experimental results don’t go the way they like, sophists like Ball4 just call the experimenter incompetent.
When 47000 ‘experimental results dont go the way’ DREMT wants he waits for one one for one from blog ‘science’ and then declares ‘case closed’.
Gordo, Let me try again, this time with a very simply explanation for your feeble mind.
The anomalies are the result of subtracting the average over some base period from the actual brightness temperatures.
As a result of this process, the data is spread along the zero line when plotted. Changing the base period would simply changes the position of the data relative to zero when plotted, as long as there’s no change in the yearly average. Trouble is, the yearly seasonal cycle is also changing as the Earth warms.
But, this process is calculated using each division of the zonal data, BEFORE these data are aggregated to produce the global or regional averages.
Then you wrote:
You obviously don’t understand what you are talking about. Under ambient conditions, your transistor is constantly dissipating energy to the surroundings, the rate of said dissipation being a function of the temperature of the surroundings. If the surroundings change, for example the air temperature increases, the temperature of your transistor will also increase. The reverse is also true, lower ambient temperatures will reduce the transistor’s temperature.
There’s always going to be dissipation whenever you are operating your transistor device. You are still being a moron for failing to understand that reality.
Swanson, it’s just your blog science experiment vs. these two blog science experiments:
https://principia-scientific.org/greenplate-effect-it-doesnt-happen/
https://principia-scientific.org/greenplate-effect-it-does-not-happen-proof-no-2/
..
“it’s just your blog science experiment”, that plus all heat transfer in textbooks, and all the experimental tests that it has passed.
#2
Swanson, it’s just your blog science experiment vs. these two blog science experiments:
https://principia-scientific.org/greenplate-effect-it-doesnt-happen/
https://principia-scientific.org/greenplate-effect-it-does-not-happen-proof-no-2/
Some Germans believed they were winning WWI at its end, and this led them to start and decisively lose WWII.
They finally learned.
DREMT similarly believes he was winning these arguments, and it leads him to keep bringing them up and decisively losing them all over again.
Except DREMT never learns, and wants to fight the 47th war.
#3
Swanson, it’s just your blog science experiment vs. these two blog science experiments:
https://principia-scientific.org/greenplate-effect-it-doesnt-happen/
https://principia-scientific.org/greenplate-effect-it-does-not-happen-proof-no-2/
DREMT, when you repeat the same post 3 times, the IQ of the internet drops a little.
And literally no one reads them.
#4
Swanson, it’s just your blog science experiment vs. these two blog science experiments:
https://principia-scientific.org/greenplate-effect-it-doesnt-happen/
https://principia-scientific.org/greenplate-effect-it-does-not-happen-proof-no-2/
gore & co…”looking doesnt replace calculating”
Funny, they encouraged us to do that in engineering before we rushed to calculations. In fact, we were trained to do things by inspection in problem sets before rushing to an answer.
You can learn a good deal about what a problem or question is asking by looking at, or creating a simple graph. I agree that calculations are more accurate but there are cases when a visual inspection is so good that working out the details is not that helpful. Furthermore, working purely on a calculator or Excel program can be seriously misleading.
In Engineering, we were taught to confirm answers worked out on calculators by simplified methods. If you look at the real contexts in the UAh graph, a trend of 0.14C/decade is not very helpful. In fact, it is misleading. It does not describe the data accurately and leads alarmists to conclude the trend is due to CO2 warming.
If you LOOK at the graph with scrutiny, it becomes apparent that CO2 could never produce the different contexts that are obvious. Roy claims he thinks CO2 may be partially responsible but he does not say how much. He also claims that natural variability is likely.
You are NOT an engineer.
Have you ever thought about getting away from the Internet and “everyone else is stupid except me” and maybe getting some nice warm air, instead of producing it?
plastic…”You are NOT an engineer”.
What are you, a clairvoyant, or just a voyeur?
Robertson is under the belief that the scholarship he received for not working for years so he could retrain was a reward for intelligence, rather than a disguised oil-industry payment for being a useful dunce.
Why is that when one has no argument the argument goes ad hominem?
barry…”work out where I got this graph from”
The graph you produced in your reply to me is not the graph you used in the first. The second, from Roy, uses two of the channels from the weighting functions I posted. Note the blue line is channel 5 and extends to the surface.
I have also noted how flustered you get when you are caught in an error. You did the same when I posted proof that the IPCC admitted to a flat trend from 1998 – 2012 and that NOAA admitted to slashing it’s surface stations from 6000 to less than 1500.
Robertson,
The first graph has a URL, which you can read and see where it comes from, the same way you can see that the second graph I linkes is from Roy Spencer. Quit being dense.
I haven’t got caught out in a error, you nitwit. The TLT channel (originally channel 2, now channel 5) measures a deep swathe of the atmosphere weighted most strongly at about 3 kilometers. That isd what I said, and exactly what Roy’s graph shows you.
Did you know that MSU channels 1, 2, and 15 are considered “window” channels because the atmosphere is essentially clear of microwave radiance at those frequencies, so virtually all of the measured microwave radiation comes from the surface. While this sounds like a good way to measure surface temperature, it turns out that the microwave emissivity of the surface (it’s ability to emit microwave energy) is so variable that it is difficult to accurately measure surface temperatures using these measurements. The variable emissivity problem is the smallest for well-vegetated surfaces, and largest for snow-covered surfaces. While the microwave emissivity of the ocean surfaces around 50 GHz is more stable, it just happens to have a temperature dependence which almost exactly cancels out any sensitivity to surface temperature.
So no, UAH on-board instruments cannot separate ground from atmospheric radiance. In fact, there is some stratospheric influence in the product UAH call Temperature Lowere Troposphere. There is also ground influence, but it is impossible to extract the temperature of these thinner layers from the 12km swathe UAH TLT is measuring.
barry…”I dont think UAH is the best. They are all estimates with strengths and weaknesses ”
Are you sure Bindidon has not taken over your nym? I don’t recall you being quite this stupid.
An AMSU unit on a NOAA satellite is a sophisticated electronic device flown originally to get date for weather forecasting. It does not ‘estimate’ it measures directly the microwave emissions from oxygen molecules. Like any instrument measuring a broad range of frequencies it averages the emissions received. However, the frequency spectrum is broken down into channels that can measure frequencies pertinent to the lower atmosphere.
Claiming the measurements are estimates is based on ignorance of the pressure/temperature relationship in the lower atmosphere which is linear. It’s a far better system than thermometers in boxes at fixed heights in the atmosphere spread out over distance of a 1000 miles. Even Hansen admitted to the problems there.
When NOAA begins artificially estimating temperatures based on an interpolation and homogenization of temperatures from stations up to 1200 miles apart, using a climate model, then you have fudged temperatures. That’s over the land surfaces not the oceans, which are completely fudged due to the impossibility of getting thermometers to cover them.
You supreme ignorance on this is boundless, and in the face of many source material being made available to you to learn better, endless.
Of course the temperature measurements are estimates. There are numerous instruments over time, decay of orbit of the satellites over time and intercallibration between different sensors and satellites is not perfect as Dr Spencer has said himself.
Further, the satellites do not read the entire Earth in one go. They take a few days to scan the globe, so you do not have real-time complete coverage.
It is fascinating that it makes no impression on you that the UAH TLT product has been through many versions and the trends from those data have changed, sometimes dramatically, with every revision.
If the AMSU data is perfect, why do revisions keep happening?
You’re just brainless, mate.
barry…”Of course the temperature measurements are estimates”.
There is a difference between estimates and error margins. Everything in good science is stated with an error margin. UAH claimed that the orbital issue in the Tropics produced an error that fell within the stated error margin.
In electronics, resistors are stated with a tolerance. You never expect a 10K resistor to measure exactly 10,000 ohms on a DVM. Tolerances are built into scientific measurement as error margins. We had that drummed into us in first year science labs.
UAH has claimed to have compared it’s temperature measurements with radiosondes and found them to compare favourably.
And so does RSS. It depends on which radiosonde data you use.
Look at the trend comparisons between UAH, RSS and various radiosondes here:
https://tinyurl.com/yac9srnj
John Garrett…”Piltdown Mann was either hopelessly incompetent or a fraud”.
It was the former, he had just received his Ph.D (in geology) a year before publishing the paper. He was still green around the ears yet he got published and the IPCC and Al Gore rushed to endorse his madness.
Although Mann’s paper ignored the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age (they wanted a flat shaft for the hockey stick), the IPCC should have caught that because in the 1990 review they published a graph acknowledging the MWP and LIA.
The IPCC soon distanced itself from the hockey stick, re-issuing it with so many error bars it became known as the spaghetti graph. It also re-instituted the MWP and the LIA so the shaft looks nothing like a straight shaft. Whereas Mann had claimed 1000 years, the IPCC changed that to 1850 onward.
The IPCC is loaded with climate alarmists. Phil Jones of Had-crut and Kevin Trenberth of NCAR, were partners as Coordinating Lead Authors at IPCC reviews. CLAs select the Lead Authors, who are politically selected, and the LAs select the reviewers.
All in all, the process stinks. After the reviews are submitted by 2500 reviewers, the IPCC allows the Summary for Policymakers, written by 50 lead authors to override the reviews. They amend the reviews by 2500 reviewers so it is in line with the Summary.
In the Climategate email scandal, Jones is quoted as claiming he and ‘Kevin’ will make sure that certain skeptical papers don’t make it into the IPCC review stage. I am sure one of those papers was co-authored by John Christy of UAH.
The IPCC, and now NAS, has been infiltrated by alarmist scumbags. Anyone who claims the hockey stick is legit, is not only delusional, he/she is an idiot.
“The IPCC, and now NAS, has been infiltrated by alarmist scumbags.”
Yep, there it is: Now even the NAS has to be smeared. What did that take, about 36 hours? Getting slow.
“Anyone who claims the hockey stick is legit, is not only delusional, he/she is an idiot.”
Arf. Anyone claiming to have successfully reconstructed historical temperatures without finding a hockey stick is a liar. What your kind can never grasp is that science ultimately rests on INDEPENDENT REPLICATION. Being ideologues you think that discrediting the original witness will make reality go away, but the witness could turn out to be Hitler, Jack the Ripper, Dracula, Yosemite Sam and Donald Trump all rolled into one and that would not make it go dark inside when they say it is daytime.
We agree that it is daytime because everyone looks out the window and sees that the Sun is out. Smearing the first person to notice only works in politics.
Elliott…”What your kind can never grasp is that science ultimately rests on INDEPENDENT REPLICATION”.
Yes…it’s called the scientific method. How could anyone possibly duplicate the trash science in the hockey stick pseudo-science? Two of the first claiming to do it were…tada…students of Mann.
When McIntyre and McKitrick analyzed the work of Mann et al, they found that white noise would produce a hockey stick using the Mann et al algorithms. When statistics expert Wegmann analyzed it he agreed, and added that section 9 of the IPCC reviews were all buddies of Mann who nepotically cited only the works of each other.
After the misogynist behaviour of Mann toward scholar Judith Curry, who is at least twice the scientist Mann ever thought of being, and his despicable behavior revealed in the Climategate email scandal, why would NAS possibly induct him? The only possible answer is that NAS is now run by climate alarmist weenies.
I omitted to clarify the section 9 incident. When M&M complained to the IPCC about the hockey stick they were initially rebuffed by IPCC bigwig Susan Solomon. She finally acquiesced and appointed section 9 to investigate. They completely ignored her, leading Wegmann to investigate as to why. That’s when he found section 9 and Mann were buddies who cited only the work of each other.
Wegmann referred to section 9 as nepotic. The only retort from Mann et al was to charge Wegmann with plagiarism. Excuse me??? An investigator quotes from the works of one of the co-authors in MBB98, and he is charged with plagiarism??? The weenies in MBB were too stupid to understand the meaning of plagiarism.
“Yesits called the scientific method. How could anyone possibly duplicate the trash science in the hockey stick pseudo-science?”
No-one, basically. Everyone who has constructed a corroborating series has found the same shape.
“When McIntyre and McKitrick analyzed the work of Mann et al”
I.e. did not attempt their own replication.
“they found that white noise would produce a hockey stick using the Mann et al algorithms.”
When you use epicycles as they were calculated at the time of Kepler, you can produce the movement of the planets BETTER than using the maths of heliocentrism as it was used at the same time. Heliocentrism remains correct, nevertheless. It is only in the delusional world of deniers that a correct result with an irrelevent methodological flaw remains incorrect for all time, no matter how often it is reproduced with corrected methods.
The hockey stick remains no matter who reconstructs it, no matter how carefully the method is corrected. It’s real. None of you will ever produce a conflicting result. In fact, as your perpetual, desperate resort to McI and McK demonstrates, you cannot even imagine what a conflicting result would look like. You are citing an alleged demonstration that the result would appear even if not real instead of a demonstration that it does not appear when properly checked and YOU DON’T EVEN UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE.
Now that’s pitiful.
“When statistics expert Wegmann analyzed it he agreed, and added that section 9 of the IPCC reviews were all buddies of Mann who nepotically cited only the works of each other.”
See above. Not one person can show that the hockey stick is not there when methodological flaws are later corrected. Not one person can produce a conflicting result. Dozens of teams independently reproduce the same phenomenon. It’s real.
“After the misogynist behaviour of Mann toward scholar Judith Curry, who is at least twice the scientist Mann ever thought of being, and his despicable behavior revealed in the Climategate email scandal, why would NAS possibly induct him?”
Because he’s a scientist of NAS-level standing and importance, and because the NAS is more interested in that fact than in your attempt to smear him with irrelevances and name-calling.
Anyway, if you still believe in the climategate “scandal” you are a couple of perverts short of a conservative club.
“Dozens of teams independently reproduce the same phenomenon. It’s real.”
Every one of those teams used enough of the same known to be HS proxies a priori eliminating the proxies that do not show enough HS for their particular taste. If not, then post up a published study that does no a priori proxy selection & properly uses all the available proxies in the field exactly as published by the original author.
Post ANY published temperature reconstruction that fails to confirm Mann et al’s original finding. I have issued this challenge repeatedly and never been answered. Instead of responding you move the goalposts by inserting a manifestly unsatisfiable condition based on an unfounded allegation of “taste”.
All published reconstructions using proxies have by definition satisfied the preconditions of sufficient quality for publication, the only conditions that interest anyone. Trying to filter out the entire body of research with deranged fantasies about “taste” does not dismiss the clear inference that you have no papers at all with which to falsify the Hockey Stick. It reinforces that inference.
Can you even name a proxy where the “original author” is not also party to the temperature reconstruction? I’d be surprised if you ever even bothered to cross-check.
Global multiproxy database here: https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata201788 It’s quite big.
“Can you even name a proxy where the “original author” is not also party to the temperature reconstruction?”
Tiljander.
I observe Elliot was unable to post up any paleo temperature reconstructions without a priori selection to limit proxies to those containing the signals selected by the researchers.
Confirming, so far, my position there is no relevant paper that uses ALL the proper proxies in the field, the quite big “Global multiproxy database” which doesn’t contain unpublished data used in some reconstructions so the work cannot be replicated.
“Tiljander.”
Fair enough. Mann used that one as part of an aggregate study of many proxies, so it is not unexpected that he would not have prodiced them all personally. Hardly supports anything else you say, though, does it?
“I observe Elliot was unable to post up any paleo temperature reconstructions without a priori selection to limit proxies to those containing the signals selected by the researchers”
I don’t have to. It’s quite obviously an illegitimate demand and intended only as a crude attempt to distract from your lack of any supporting research. Any study is clearly going to select and/or normalise data according to quality criteria fitting the study. Since that leaves it open for you to keep parroting unsubstantiated claims that the selection was done just to bias the outcome, there is no legitimate need to answer.
The fact that none of you can come up with a study of your own that falsifies Mann et al is the only criterion that need be considered, as it is the only SCIENTIFIC basis on which dozens of replications could possibly be overturned.
Any of you could go through that database or collect your own proxy data and show the outcome when it is properly analysed. But you’re not going to do that, because you know just as well as the rest of us that the Hockey Stick will just end up getting yet another replication if you try. So we just get empty bluster.
“Hardly supports anything else you say, though, does it?”
Not intended. Only an answer to the focused question you asked.
“I don’t have to.”
Then your claim the HS always results when a priori proxy selection “fitting the study” is not employed is in no way credible.
Elliot, you really do have to come up with a published study not using a priori proxy selection showing a HS since they all use proxy pre-selection before going into the meat grinder in this peculiar specialist field. Quality control is entirely different.
Come on Elliot, do the work, back up your claim “The hockey stick remains no matter who reconstructs it” without your “fitting the study”, you won’t be able to do so since it always..ALWAYS matters to a priori select proxies in this field to result in a HS.
If you could do so easily, you already would have posted up the paper not using a priori proxy selection contrary to my claim they all do so. I don’t claim to have seen every relevant paper (as is implicit in your claim that you have) thus you might actually find one. Would be interesting.
“Every one of those teams used enough of the same known to be HS proxies a priori eliminating the proxies that do not show enough HS for their particular taste. ”
This is your claim Ball4. Where is this idea from? Can you back it up with any evidence?
Nate, clearly a great deal of analysis* could be done answering your questions. Generating hockey sticks has become a cottage industry. My view was formed from reading up on the subject. All you need to do is find one relevant paleotemperature reconstruction paper with no smoothing & no elimination of temperature proxy for any reason to defeat my claim. I’ve never found one but plenty could be out there as I haven’t looked in a while.
It’s the same argument on temperature series trends ad inifinitum around here, a real time waster, better things to do and life is short.
*OK, to be helpful, fyi here’s a start for some reading:
“Unless the data is measured with no error, you never, ever, for no reason, under no threat, SMOOTH the series! And if for some bizarre reason you do smooth it, you absolutely on pain of death do NOT use the smoothed series as input for other analyses!…This is because smoothing induces spurious signals.. ”
Ok, well I suppose except for the red curve in the top post which is at least helpful for weather changes and the black line which is helpful for climate changes.
https://wmbriggs.com/post/195/
Interesting article, a little over the top. He likes Climate Audit? Ugggh
His quote “Unless the data is measured with error, you”
Different from yours?
Good catch Nate, you are paying admirable attention. My guess is Briggs typo’d left out the word no if you read the next sentence for comparison.
Briggs also likes McShane and Wyner, see at the bottom where a straight yellow climate line fits the real data just as well as the Gordie Howe weather stick. The straight yellow line cannot be “rejected with any great certainty” over the last 1000 years.
“Elliot, you really do have to come up with a published study not using a priori proxy selection showing a HS since they all use proxy pre-selection before going into the meat grinder in this peculiar specialist field.”
No. I don’t. Theory predicts the hockey stick. Every study reproduces the hockey stick. You cannot show a single properly-conducted temperature series for the period that does not show the hockey stick. NOT ONE, nota bene; sampling errors and uncertainties alone should generate one spurious negative result per 20 at the conventional 2-sigma confidence rate, so the overall confidence taken in aggregate is much, much higher.
There is not a single legitimate criticism you can raise that addresses the entire range of proxies, and not a single line of evidence that supports your claim. Worse, not a single properly-conducted study WITHIN a single line of evidence, which chance alone should have coughed up by now if there were any real uncertainty.
That’s why you’re essentially reduced to claiming that you can ignore scores of studies purely on the basis that you cannot understand the basis for selecting data streams. A selection without which, ironically, probably no study would be fit for publication.
But you keep on with your “I don’t know, therefore God” line. Or global conspiracy, in this case. No-one will ever notice that you have no evidence. Arf.
BTW, did I mention that Doctor Mann was just elected to the NAS?
“Every study reproduces the hockey stick.”
Of course Elliot, as I keep pointing out, since “every study” a priori selects certain temperature proxies that are known to have a strong enough HS shape & deselect proxies that don’t show a HS (blade up) in this peculiar field. As I wrote, I am aware of no study that avoids the pre-selection process & uses all the proxies in the database, generally accepted applied statistical skill, and with decent quality control. Same as Elliot because none are available, Elliot just runs in place avoiding working the issue.
Science is not conducted based on votes in elections Elliot. Funding science IS based on votes in elections though so researchers in this field react to prevailing economic incentive.
“where a straight yellow climate line fits the real data just as well as the Gordie Howe weather stick.”
1. He claims that, but doesnt show that it is the case. Drawing a line is not sufficient.
2. A straight line clearly doesnt fit the instrumental record.
The straight yellow line and the real unsmoothed temperature data (which has measurement error) are both 95% significant as all their respective points are within the CIs. Nature’s actual precise data, if known, could even be outside those CIs (the other 5%).
The HS is just as significant as a straight line but HS papers get way more funding than straight lines like the black line in top post. It’s just the way the world works.
“all their respective points are within the CIs.’
That’s now how curve fitting works, Ball4.
For example, I could draw a curve that is always on the bottom end of the 2 sigma CI, but that would be a terrible fit and have low significance.
If we look at a temperature record sampled monthly, instead of yearly, we will get more noise and larger CI, and according to your logic, a wider variety of curves could then fit the data.
If we sample weekly, or daily, even worse.
And that makes no sense.
Nate, the significance doesn’t change as you write. A hockey stick, a straight constant line, a descending or ascending line from left to right all fit the MW Fig. 16 with 95% confidence that nature does too. Take your pick with equal 95% confidence become a fan of 1000 year climate HS, straight constant line or hey climate is getting warmer/cooler ascending/descending line – all of those various fan boys are on this blog. You know who you are.
Stat.s provides us the 95% confidence that the real no error natural temperature anomaly is in there somewhere but it is unknown where in MW Fig. 16. No one can prove any fan boy right or wrong based on last 1000 years of temperature proxy/instruments.
The point of all this is the proxies used in Mann et. al. 08 (or 98,99) do statistically little better at explaining the temperature trends than random noise. You can be a 95% confident HS devotee, coolista, warmista or lukewarmer and feel comfortable with 95% confidence that you cannot be proved wrong….or right.
‘Nate, the significance doesn’t change as you write. A hockey stick, a straight constant line, a descending or ascending line from left to right all fit the MW Fig. 16 with 95% confidence that nature does too.’
Show me that it fits with same significance. Declaring doesnt cut it.
You ignored what I wrote.
Does CI increase if I sample temperature monthly or weekly or daily? Yes or No?
Nate, see MW10 paper & Briggs post/comments at the link I gave for your answers on how CIs can increase since it is your interest. I did not ignore what you wrote.
If you understood CI and curve fitting you would be able to answer my simple question, Ball4, rather than sending me down a rabbit hole and ignoring my post.
Your question answers are your interest Nate, not mine. Jump in your rabbit hole and try find your answers. What I wrote is consistent with what I read jumping into this particular rabbit hole and other ones over time. Sometimes rabbits do have to be chased, but only the interesting ones.
“Although Mann’s paper ignored the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age…”
From that very paper:
“Our reconstruction thus supports the notion of relatively warm hemispheric conditions earlier in the millennium, while cooling following the 14th century could be viewed as the initial onset of the Little Ice Age… Considerable spatial variability is evident however [see Hughes and Diaz, 1994] and, as in in Lamb’s [1965] original concept of a Medieval Warm Epoch, there are episodes of cooler as well as warmer conditions punctuating this period…”
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/research/ONLINE-PREPRINTS/Millennium/mbh99.pdf
“…the IPCC should have caught that”
The IPCC reflected the science as it was known at the time. A perspective which subsequent research (30+ papers) from many different groups, using different proxies and moethods, has generally supported.
Let’s preempt the next myth too.
MYTH: The “hockey stick” graph cannot be validated because Mann refuses to disclose the materials used for publication.
FACT: The MBH98 data, methods, and source code have always been available for review.
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/research/MANNETAL98/
Did Wegman ever release his team’s data, methods, and source code in full?
Always been available? No that’s not quite fact, there was no contemporaneous archiving of the MBH98 code causing quite a subsequent commotion.
Note the dates in the file structure you link. The archiving is many years after the paper (~July 2005). Inspection of the source code you link requires source input files not at the existing archive. The code is not operational with only your link; perhaps you can find the input files later posted somewhere else if you want to stick to your point.
Fair point on “always”. I should have said at least at the time of the Wegman request. Wegman seemed to be satisfied (or least not dissatisfied) with the delivered materials at least in regards to what was delivered. However, Wegman did express concern that it was “not organized or documented in such a way that makes it practical for an outsider to replicate” and that “the directory and file structure Dr. Mann used are embedded in the code”. He did not express concern with anything being missing from what I read. I wonder if the “several websites” that were given to Wegman included datasets used by MBH, but not owned or maintained by MBH.
This does bring up an interesting issue. If public funds are used to provide products that require non-public datasets how does that get handled? Should it be a law that private entities or otherwise non-affiliated entities forfeit their IP rights if their products are used for publicly funded research? I don’t have an answer for that. Just throwing it out as a talking point.
Your Wegman clips seem to indicate he (or associates) didn’t try to replicate so, standing alone, indicates him being unaware of jneeded detail files missing from the archive. It’s been a long while since MBH98,99,08 was all litigated. I don’t recall any overall major improvement archiving published paper SI in this field though there has been limited movement in a better direction allowing replication here and there.
Society still looking for your better answers; survival of the fittest will be at play for a long time sorting out imo. There exists a complicated competition for limited funds, to publish preserving IP rights, journal compensation, public rights to the information, & much more which all compete. What you see out there is the current wild west compromise of academic capitalism & its required regulation with the rise of blogs, vlogs, tweets, FB, and of course, above and below the decency line, age old politics in public policy.
barry, bdgwx, please stop trolling.
barry…”The hockeystick canard is a zombie argument that no amount of head shots seems to put down”.
Now, according to myopic Barry, NAS is a zombie. NAS held a review of the paper and concluded it did not apply before 1600. The IPCC raised that to 1850. NAS told Mann et al they could not use pine bristlecone as a proxy for the 20th century, essentially negating the blade of the stick.
That was a NAS review infiltrated by climate alarmists who did not want to put Mann down too heavily. There was a time when an idiot like a climate alarmist would never get into NAS but one or two conned their way in and now NAS is long forgotten as a hallmrk of scientific endeavour.
Did you miss all that Barry? Or does your selective mind automatically filter it out? You are still in denial that the IPCC confirmed a flat trend from 1998 – 2012 and you can’t come to grips with a direct admission from NOAA that they slashed REPORTING global surface stations from 6000 to less than 1500.
Bindidon cannot understand the difference between a reporting station, that is, a station from which its data is actually used, and a surface station that simply records temperatures for no apparent reason. Since 1990, NOAA has discarded 90% of the data from those stations and uses climate models to fudge temperatures from stations that are there but never used.
I missed none of it. But you apparently missed the 30+ other temperature reconstructions since that broadly corroborate the hockeystick.
You’ve had years to figure out that the hockeystick shape has been a consistent feature regardless of what methods, what proxies, or who did the research, for two decades.
You are still stuck in news that is 15 years old. When will you start to catch up?
Here is a fairly comprehensive list of the relevant rsearch that happened after 1999, with the most recent paper in 2019.
https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/11/17/papers-on-reconstructions-of-modern-temperatures/
I trust you’ll educate yours….
Yeah, yeah, we both know that aint happening.
barry, please stop trolling.
binny…”My first question would be: Why doesnt Robertson at least have the courage to seek an explicit confrontation with Roy Spencer, who precisely calculates and publishes the trend of 0.14 C / decade for his own data what Robertson nonetheless allows himself to doubt?
Why does he not tell Roy Spencer that his trend computation is wrong?”
I have never claimed Roy’s computations are wrong. I think they are correct for a trend line from 1979 – 2020. I am questioning the meaning of the trend and UAH is a lot smarter than you at interpreting it.
From the 33 year report:
“While Earths climate has warmed in the last 33 years, the climb has been irregular. There was little or no warming for the first 19 years of satellite data. Clear net warming did not occur until the El Nio Pacific Ocean warming event of the century in late 1997. Since that upward jump, there has been little or no additional warming”.
****
“Christy and other UAHuntsville scientists have calculated the cooling effect caused by the eruptions of Mexicos El Chichon volcano in 1982 and the Mt. Pinatubo volcano in the Philippines in 1991. When that cooling is subtracted, the long-term warming effect is reduced to 0.09 C (0.16 F) per decade, well below computer model estimates of how much global warming should have occurred”.
Even though Roy’s trend is indicated clearly, the subjective description describes periods of cooling and a long flat trend. Roy is not stupid, like you and other alarmists, he works within the bounds of science and he knows a trend is a trend. He does not agree with you on what the trend means.
Look at the pile of garbage above and see how confused the poor old man is:
“It’s not possible based on the shortness of the UAH record to make claims about an overall global warming.”
(YET)
“Clear net warming did not occur until the El Nino Pacific Ocean warming event of the century in late 1997. Since that upward jump, there has been little or no additional warming.”
(AND YET)
“It’s obvious there has been a warming since 1979 but what does it mean?”
(Consistency of thought is clearly lacking here)
“Furthermore, working purely on a calculator or Excel program can be seriously misleading”
(Seriously difficult you mean– stick to your slide rule)
“All in all, the process stinks.”
(Wahhh!)
“The IPCC, and now NAS, has been infiltrated by alarmist scumbags.”
(Everybody is against me!- What a whiny infantile loser.)
I’m afraid you are not in a position to speak about what a trend “means” [sic] when you cannot even maintain a consistent position on whether a warming [trend] can even be said to exist over the period in question, or subsets thereof. As long as you are flailing about and asserting that UAH (1979-2020) is too short to make claims about warming, but 1997-2020 is long enough to make them, the unfortunate impression of intellectual incontinence will persist. Possibly exacerbated by dysentery and a few curries.
Trends don’t “mean” anything, by the way. They are quantitative and numeric, not semantic. In science, their role is to inform, confirm or disconfirm theory.
Elliott, please stop trolling.
binny…”2. Robertson has, though having been informed by many commentators in this blog, still no knowledge about how a linear trend is calculated.
Trends are based on ordinary least squares, and have nothing to do with any average, let alone with anomalies. They are exactly what he refuses to learn and accept: a best fit over a set of data points, e.g. ”
*********
Please allow me to edumacate you on some basic statistics. The linear trend line began as a visual guess of the average value between data points on a graph. You could eyeball the data and draw a line that you thought best-fit the data.
That trend line is a model, it’s an estimate of the actual average. The trick is to find the error between that estimate per data point and the actual value.
It’s all based on the definition of a line, where y = mx +b. If you have a point at x = 4 and y = 8 the equation becomes:
8 = 4m1 + b1
If you have another point nearby at (3,7) you have:
7 = 3m2 + b2
In other words a line in the first case would have slope m1 and intercept the y-axis at b1, and the in the 2nd case the slope of the line would be m2 with a y-intercept of b2.
Obviously these lines are not parallel and you want one line through many data points that has the same slope m and intercepts y at b. The line is a model and you want it to reflect the AVERAGE represented by the line.
An anomaly is the same thing as the y-variable in the line above. It needs the x-coordinate to establish time, in case of the UAH graph, but the y variable is the actual deviation from a monthly temperature from the x-axis.
This becomes a problem with simultaneous equations of the form y = mx + b. There is obviously an error between the real data point and the point represented by the line, a quantity called a residual. The idea is to make the sum of the squares of each residual as small as possible.
The value you want as a residual for example 1 above is to convert it to the form:
8 = 3m2 +b1 to the form:
[8 – 3m2 +b1]^2 where you are squaring the difference between the real point 8 minus the modelled point 3m2 + b1.
If you do that with a whole bunch of points, you can find the minimum using calculus and find the error in your modelled line. Least squares is a reference to a point of residual minima using a derivative in calculus.
That does not get around the obvious, that the trend is a straight line calculated from a guess then refined to determine the error between the modelled line and the real data. You can still do that by hand using the methodology I have described.
If you use a calculator or an Excel function, you miss all of that. The danger there is in missing what the data is trying to tell you. That’s why I refer to those using calculators or Excel without understanding the data, as bean-counters.
binny…”No red baseline here, and thus no rewarming below the baseline, no TRUE warming above the baseline. Only warming”.
That’s because you have no baseline, the baseline obviously being 0C. With absolute temperatures you don’t need a baseline, it’s only with anomalies that the baseline is required.
Here’s a real view of an absolute temperature scale. Look at figure 5 and see how insignificant global warming is on an absolute scale.
https://web.archive.org/web/20130511040419/http://www.ianschumacher.com/global_warming.html
Gordo presents another denialist blast, as if those of us who have studied paleoclimate aren’t aware that the Earth has been in Ice Age conditions beginning around 3.3 million years BP. The author of your link insists on presenting the greatest temperature range from the Vostok core, comparing that range with just the past 40 years, ignoring the fact that polar temperatures exhibit an amplified temperature cycle not seen in global average data. The global average difference over the period of the Voseok core appears to be about 5 C colder.
Of course, Gordo can’t understand that averaging absolute temperatures will be meaningless, given the wide range of in those values due to seasonal and latitude, as well as the need to area weight the data.
We also find a plot from Loehle 2007, a completely botched report which had to be “corrected” immediately after it was published. The corrected version, published only a few months later, wasn’t a correction, but an entirely different approach which was not much better than the first, as I pointed out in a Letter to the Editor published in E&E.
“Obviously these lines are not parallel “
The slopes and intercepts in your examples are arbitrary. If I make the fairly obvious choice m1 = m2 = 1 and b1 = b2 = 4, then not only are the lines parallel, the lines are identical!
Or m1 = m2 = 0 and b1 = 8, b2 = 7. Again, the lines are parallel, but no longer identical.
“The value you want as a residual for example 1 above is to convert it to the form:
8 = 3m2 +b1 to the form:
[8 – 3m2 +b1]^2”
Your subscripts are jumbled. Did you mean m1 rather than m2? In any case, that is NOT what you want. You want a single m & b for all of the points, not separate m1,m2,m3, etc for each point.
Lets build on your example, using 4 points, to actually understand.
x, y
3, 7
3, 8
4, 8
4, 9
The least square fit line is y = 1x + 4.5.
“An anomaly is the same thing as the y-variable in the line above. ”
No.
* The y-variable in the line above is just the modeled fit. (7.5 @ x = 3 and 8.5 @ x = 4)
* The RESIDUALS are -0.5, 0.5, -0.5, 0.5 respectively.
* An anomaly is a difference from a baseline. In this case the standard baseline would be the average of all the y values = 8. The anomalies are -1, 0, 0, +1 respectively.
Note that I could choose a different baseline — the baseline is a convenience, not something forced on us by statistics. A different baseline would change the anomalies, but would not change the slope of the line nor the residuals.
Swanson, Tim, please stop trolling.
For a moment you could think that Robertson the ignorant now really managed, for the first time, to start looking a bit at what anomalies and trends really are, and how they are computed, and would stop writing his egocentric nonsense.
But, instead of accepting he was wrong all the time, he now tries to teach me about what I learned over 12 years ago, and proudly writes
” Please allow me to edu[ma]cate you on some basic statistics. ”
as if he had known all that since years.
But then, instead of trying to really grasp what Carl Gauss set up 200 years ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Least_squares
he returns to his psychotic urge to act as a great teacher.
Until yesterday, he still did not really understand how ordinary least squares are computed!
Please, Robertson!
– Stop to invent stuff according to your narrative all the time,
– simply learn how things really work,
and above all
– stop trying to educate others about what they know since much longer time than you do.
J.-P. D.
When I learnt the least squares method, Reagan and Thatcher were still in their first terms! Couldn’t explain it today without looking it up first to be on the safe side, of course. Google docs or LibreOffice do it just fine for everyday purposes, and Python has endless libraries for that kind of thing.
Let me try – an ordinary least squares linear regression is a claculation that derives a straight line through data points such that the sum of the squared distance between every data point and the line – is least.
We use squared values (distance squared) – because we get all positive residuals that can’t be summed any which way to hell to get a small error – just summing the distance (not squared) would give you infinite different lines that would all sum to a zero error.
Ordinary least squares gives a single result for the mean trend. And then you have to take uncertainty into account.
The function of a linear trend is limited, but its ubiquity in science is because it is a powerful filter to determine some basic things, such as “has there been any change?”
Well, THAT much I could explain. 🙂 In this case I mean, “Explain in sufficient detail that one could proceed to write the algorithm in code.”
Bindidon, Elliott, barry, please stop trolling.
For a little moment, I thought – and really hoped – that Robertson now really has grasped the relation between reference periods, baselines and anomalies…
But… I had overlooked this in his last comment:
” Thats because you have no baseline, the baseline obviously being 0C. With absolute temperatures you dont need a baseline, its only with anomalies that the baseline is required. ”
No, he didn’t understand how that works. He can’t have. Definitely not.
Bah. Does that really matter? no.
J.-P. D.
Ye gods…
Bindidon, Elliott, please stop trolling.
Upthread I discover a new prose from Robertson in which he replied to Svante:
” What is it about negative anomalies you donât understand? A trend with negative anomalies does not indicate a warming of the atmosphere: it indicates a recovery from cooling. That situation prevails till you reach the baseline then true warming begins. ”
This is so dumb, so stubborn, so brazen, that it becomes delightful.
But… many people read this blog’s threads, and read the comments around them as well.
If you don’t contradict Robertson, all the silent readers accessing the blog soon or later will begin to take his brazenly unscientific stuff serious, and begin to believe he is right.
What motivates Robertson to believe that only positive anomalies can mean ‘true’ warming? Why does he not understand that a change of the reference period automatically changes the anomaly values wrt the x-axis, but without modifying the trend?
*
1. Here is a chart showing the UAH data as anomalies, as usual since years wrt the mean of 1981-2010:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZC3f6rSC-9zA7cWNMa1NTc1a_ndK7LjH/view
So, according to Robertson, there is a recovery from cooling (a ‘rewarming’) between 1979 and 1995, and a TRUE warming [sic] which, he thinks, begins after the trend line passed the baseline.
*
2. But wait… some years ago, UAH’s reference period was quite different, namely 1979-1998.
This leads to a new 12-month vector, each month of it now containing the average of all corresponding months in the new period.
That gives us, out of the same absolute data, another anomaly chart:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/18_g0W7CnY4TTqSEzAiwZokj0PKjMn9JW/view
OMG! Now, again according to Robertson, the recovery from cooling is reduced by years, and ends already in 1989! The TRUE warming phase now has become outrageously long! Oh Noes.
*
3. So let’s save Robertson’s honor, by moving on to a baseline hopefully more pleasing to this genius: for example, 1990-2019.
We now obtain, still out of the same absolute data, a third chart:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1H0s9JrnMqy4JjRUgkx0lLN2RTSm8Ivoq/view
Ha! Now, the recovery from cooling is extended, up to 2004! Great!
The TRUE warming is reduced to a decent minimum. Greater!
*
4. What will Robertson tell us, if he still enlightens us with his ‘science’ in the year 2035, the decent warming then is still the same as now, and Roy Spencer’s successor introduced, a few years before, WHO’s most recent reference period proposal, i.e. then 2001-2030 ?
*
But instead of accepting his mistake, Robertson probably will pretend that these graphs all are faked, and contain fudged UAH data.
He never will give up, and always will come here again and again with his spurious ideas.
Decades ago, I had to do with colleagues a la Robertson. Their motto, their fundamental attitude was:
– rather make assumptions than ask questions;
– never admit they are wrong;
– but claim at the right moment that they have in fact always supported what they fought so hard before.
Good grief!
J.-P. D.
” What is it about negative anomalies you don’t understand? A trend with negative anomalies does not indicate a warming of the atmosphere: it indicates a recovery from cooling. That situation prevails till you reach the baseline then true warming begins.”
Incredible. Simply and utterly incredible.
A baseline is a quasi-arbitrary choice from which to make anomalies of the absolute data. We could lower the baseline to match the lowest anomaly and say that it is a warm system getting warmer, or we could match it to the highest anomaly and say it is a cool system that hasn’t yet achieved warmth.
And yet the data in real terms would be unchanged, and the trends that might be calculated from these data would all be exactly the same no matter where the baseline was. The arbitrary choice of baseline says nothing about the behaviour of the system, and the distribution of negative and positive anomalies as a result of baseline position is also arbitrary and the different signs of the values say nothing whatsoever about the behaviour of the system.
That Robertson gets this utterly basic understanding so bone-headedly wrong completely disqualifies any opinion he might have on related issues. It’s not a question of opinion, this is stats 101 he is failing in a glaringly obvious way. It’s primary school easy to get the concept, but Robertson doesn’t.
Bindidon, barry, please stop trolling.
A linear trend is meaningless for non-linear temperature data.
Also, CO2 levels have been rising since the trough of the Great Recession in 1932, so starting a trend in 1979 makes no sense.
The global average temperature is a statistic with low value – not one person lives in the average temperature.
Much more important are the details: Warming is mainly at high (cold) latitudes, mainly during the six coldest months of the year, and mainly at night.
That’s a different story than a single average.
Warmer winter nights in Alaska — is that bad news?
Our planet has mild multi-hundred year warming and cooling trends, according to ice core studies.
We’ve been in a warming trend since the 1690’s — the only other “choice” would be a cooling trend.
Which would you prefer?
I prefer warming and wish we had more global warming in Michigan, where we live.
You can have your linear trend line statistic — the actual climate where we live is important to us, not some global average statistic.
Dr. Spencer starts the trend in 1979 because that is the earliest year in which he had data. In other words he had no choice. If you want a trend to start in 1932 there are many datasets to choose from. I’ll recommend Berkeley Earth because the data and methods are easy to access.
The global mean surface temperatures is valuable. It is one of the defining metrics for global warming so it provides an essential test point for global warming hypothesis. It is also correlated with sea level, sea ice extents/area, and various other global properties.
From ice core evidence we do see variability in the implied global temperature. However, the contemporary warming era though perhaps not unprecedented is certainly anomalous in the record.
It does not matter what temperature trajectory I prefer. Mother nature does not listen to me, you, or anyone else. It acts only in accordance with the laws of nature. So your question of which one I prefer is completely irrelevant to this line of discussion.
What is the global warming hypothesis? Can it be verified experimentally, or is it too difficult?
BGDWX is a leftist propagandist. His job is to advance the agenda every day. I’m sure he gets paid well to do that.
I’m sure you get paid to take them down.
And my confidence on that is based on exactly the same amount of hard evidence as you have for your peurile announcement.
He’s definitely not a genuine commenter, that much is obvious. Could be a bot, doesn’t seem to possess many human qualities.
‘Could be a bot’
If referring to Amazing-MikeFlynn, then yes could be a bot.
If I did I’d do it more often.
A linear trend has limited, but powerful utility. It is a first order analysis to detect if there has been change, and to estimate how much change overall, within uncertainty limits.
No one is claiming the climate could or should change in a straight line, so no need to introduce any srtaw men into the discussion. And if one is going to explore non-linear trends, then the analysis has to be very rigorous. I’ve seen very little evidence of that for blog-level curve-fitters. No formal estimate, no uncertainites is the usual red flags.
barry, please stop trolling.
TLS dropped to 0.00C. The UAH record has 3 TLS spikes. The first two occurred because of volcanic activity. The most recent spike is hypothesized to have occurred because of the Australian wildfires. The first 2 spikes took several months to wane. It is difficult to draw conclusions from one data point, but this most recent spike early in 2020 and the subsequent drop in April is more rapid. If TLS continues to drop further then maybe the typical TLT cooling that we’ve seen succeed TLS spikes may not pan out. I had been expecting further declines in TLT this year. I may have to temper my expectations a bit.
Also noteworthy is that the TLS-TLT trend has increased to +0.42C/decade with this update.
For those that may not be familiar this metric is important because it eliminates some potential causes for the positive Earth energy imbalance and resultant near surface warming. For example…solar radiative forcing.
bdgwx
Thx, interesting.
It’s a bit late now at UTC+2, I’ll make a graphic out of it tomorrow.
J.-P. D.
The moon’s axial rotation arguments were much more interesting than talking about temperature trends month after month.
Hmmm. That’s a tough call. You could do a whole post on which would be more pointless.
The moon’s axial rotation arguments were a masterclass in showing how people refuse to doubt authority, even on the most simple issues. No advanced knowledge of physics was required, it truly was the most basic argument…so simple that people refused to accept it. Stunning levels of denial were displayed, and so much hatred as well. Psychologically fascinating.
Yeah, it shows how easy it is for DREMPT to screw up a simple problem.
Does the moon point in the same direction at all times?
Answer: No
Therefore the moon rotates.
The master baiter strikes again..
Noting that it was a ‘skeptic’ who dredged up this old argument yet again.
DREMT, please stop trolling.
Nobody is actually arguing about it, barry, so nothing has been dredged up.
Please stop trolling.
Weak.
Always takes more than one person to make an argument happen, barry. Crying “he started it”, is weak. Nobody is ever obliged to respond.
“so much hatred as well.”
Yet DREMT tries to dredge it back up.
#2
Always takes more than one person to make an argument happen, barry. Crying “he started it”, is weak. Nobody is ever obliged to respond.
“so much hatred as well”
“Nobody is ever obliged to respond.”
And yet, the head of our Dept of Hypocrisy is ever hopeful someone will take the bait.
#3
Always takes more than one person to make an argument happen, barry. Crying “he started it”, is weak. Nobody is ever obliged to respond.
You may have missed where a few months ago someone claimed (I think it may have been you) that it was ‘alarmists’ who kept bringing up the moon rotation argument. Just noting that it was a ‘skeptic’ that brought it up first here. I’ll note it next time, too.
‘Skeptics’ is in quotes this time because repeated behaviour of this kind – baiting people – is actually the behaviour of a troll.
Don’t be a troll, DREMT.
Indeed, barry, I think the person who has brought up the Moon’s axial rotation argument more than anyone else has been Bindidon. I brought it up this time, because I was bored. And I may bring it up again, in future. No doubt you will bitch and whine every time, and I’ll look forward to it.
Either way, it takes more than one person to make an argument.
You brought it up to stir the pot. You have avowed that you write “please stop trolling” because you like to provoke reactions for your amusement.
The very definition of an internet troll.
You are a troll. I guess that’s ok by you.
“You brought it up to stir the pot”
No barry, I brought it up because it’s a subject I find more interesting than repetitively discussing temperature trends on a month by month basis.
“You have avowed that you write “please stop trolling” because you like to provoke reactions for your amusement.”
Where did I avow that, barry?
Right here on this blog.
I write ‘please stop trolling’ because:
1) It amuses me (especially how seriously people like you seem to take it).
~DREMT
You are a troll. I guess you must like being a troll.
Yes, it amuses me that you take it so seriously. That’s not the same thing as doing something to provoke a reaction. You’ve read something into it that isn’t there.
Repatedly spamming a discussion forum with the same thing over and over for fun is exactly what trolls do. That you do it for your own amusement, and “especially” for how people react to it is the very definition of a troll.
You like being a troll, so there’s nothing can be done to get you to stop behaving like one.
Well there wouldn’t be much point in me writing “please stop trolling” over and over again if I didn’t get any enjoyment from doing it, now would there?
Do you think it’s honest behaviour for you not to link to the full comment, thus removing all the reasons after number 1) from the table? Come on barry, that’s a troll move.
“if I didnt get any enjoyment from doing it”
Is it really enjoyment that your OCD behaviors provide?
Compulsively touching all metal objects? Could lead to an infection.
#2
Well there wouldn’t be much point in me writing “please stop trolling” over and over again if I didn’t get any enjoyment from doing it, now would there?
Do you think it’s honest behaviour for you not to link to the full comment, thus removing all the reasons after number 1) from the table? Come on barry, that’s a troll move.
word
#3
Well there wouldn’t be much point in me writing “please stop trolling” over and over again if I didn’t get any enjoyment from doing it, now would there?
Do you think it’s honest behaviour for you not to link to the full comment, thus removing all the reasons after number 1) from the table? Come on barry, that’s a troll move., thats a troll move.
The other reasons are immaterial.
I remembered correctly. You like what your trolling provokes in people.
That is “especially” why you do it.
You list this reason at number one.
You are a troll. Accept it.
You are not correctly representing my words, barry.
It seems to me, that no one is buying the Lefty Utopia of the Green New Deal.
And more people are realizing that alternative energies are a scam, and that they are having bad environmental consequences.
One could say that alternative energy schemes, do nothing to lower CO2 emission {and I would argue have increased CO2 emission} but one could argue that there could be a significant concern in regards of future global energy needs.
I would say, if you are focused mostly on CO2 emissions, that one’s only solution lies with nuclear energy.
Nuclear energy is also a safer and cleaner way to make electrical energy, and think that would more important than the aspect of lower CO2 emissions.
One could argue that US, doesn’t have a near future energy problem- and what I mean by near future is within next 100 years.
Whereas China does have near future energy problem, but it seems a large part of China’s problem will be solved by developing more nuclear energy- which they are doing- and so is India.
It seems the future energy needs are mostly about getting countries out poverty, it appears that nations wanting to get out poverty, the most in the future will be the nations in Africa {and assortment of other nations, but keep it simple, we could focus on Africa]. One say from outsider prospective that China still has large problem with poverty, but their government plan does not seem focused doing much about, now, or in near future. Whereas with India, it seems that resolving poverty remains a strong focus, mainly because it’s a democracy and seems to only continue to grow as a democracy.
Or China seems it will replace coal power generation with nuclear energy, and India will mostly add nuclear energy {and of course will get other energy sources}
Of course it seems likely that with China and India focusing on nuclear energy, that that could “export” nuclear technology to countries in Africa in the coming decades.
Anyhow, I am not big fan of nuclear energy, mostly because tends to be governments being the energy provider. And I tend think governments can have huge capacity be very stupid- and careless.
This is not so much the case in US or even Europe, rather it’s more of a matter of, excessive involvement by government.
gbaikie…”It seems to me, that no one is buying the Lefty Utopia of the Green New Deal”.
Who said Greens are lefties? I regard them as being comprised of loonies from across the political spectrum, like uber right-winger Schwarzeneggar when he was governor of California. It was an uber right-wing local government in the Canadian province of BC that imposed a fuel carbon tax, as well as a fuel transit tax, forcing motorists to support public transit.
And who said you can label lefties? True lefties are socialists who want nothing to do with the nonsense in Stalinist Russia and the current regime in China. I’m a leftie and I am totally pro-Democracy. I have no time for the current dictatorship mentality currently sweeping the world re this phantom virus.
In fact, I support Trump in many ways over the sour-grapes, wishy-washy Democrats who are anything but left-wingers. I regard the Democrats and our federal government here in Canada as politically-correct annoyances that we must hold our noses and bear in a Democratic country. They represent the lunatic fringe of do-gooders who cannot wait to stick their noses into the business of others.
–May 5, 2020 at 7:21 PM
gbaikie…”It seems to me, that no one is buying the Lefty Utopia of the Green New Deal”.
Who said Greens are lefties? I regard them as being comprised of loonies from across the political spectrum, like uber right-winger Schwarzeneggar when he was governor of California. It was an uber right-wing local government in the Canadian province of BC that imposed a fuel carbon tax, as well as a fuel transit tax, forcing motorists to support public transit.–
I don’t just blame lefties for raising taxes. We can assume that all politicans, including “read my lips, I won’t raise taxes” will raise taxes. I would not vote for libertarian, because I imagined, it would not raise taxes. I would not call Schwarzeneggar a uber right-winger, incompetent, a weenie, a dolt, seem to sum him up.
If had to pick anyone, who cause California to be a one state party {dem} it would be Schwarzeneggar, mainly because a Rep can be competent, and no one, can say Schwarzeneggar was competent.
“And who said you can label lefties? True lefties are socialists who want nothing to do with the nonsense in Stalinist Russia and the current regime in China. I’m a leftie and I am totally pro-Democracy. I have no time for the current dictatorship mentality currently sweeping the world re this phantom virus.”
Well, if nothing else this pandemic, is going to reveal pols for what they are. Surprisingly, the California Governor seems to have recovered from appearing to be dead stupid, and could come out of this doing quite well. It seems to be that challenges can make people {pols} do a better job. Though one trust that others are going to fold under pressure.
“In fact, I support Trump in many ways over the sour-grapes, wishy-washy Democrats who are anything but left-wingers. I regard the Democrats and our federal government here in Canada as politically-correct annoyances that we must hold our noses and bear in a Democratic country. They represent the lunatic fringe of do-gooders who cannot wait to stick their noses into the business of others.”
On topic of Canadians, you guys should make sure that you are not deficient in Vitamin D. Your sun at noon, probably provides it, but apparently, the sun nearer the horizon, doesn’t. Don’t need to get a tan, but get some {btw, sunscreen blocks it}.
gbaikie…”On topic of Canadians, you guys should make sure that you are not deficient in Vitamin D. Your sun at noon, probably provides it, but apparently, the sun nearer the horizon, doesn’t. Don’t need to get a tan, but get some {btw, sunscreen blocks it}”.
Damned if you do (skin cancer) and damned if you don’t (vitamin D deficiency). My trade off is to take 2 x 1000 IU (25 mcg) vitamin D3 tablets at least every other day.
You can acquire cabin fever pretty easily up here, especially on the west coast where the sky is overcast much of the winter. It doesn’t seem to bother me one way or another, although sitting in front of a computer rather than being out in the fresh air and the elements is not very natural.
Then again, we don’t have the smog issues of US cities like LA. And we don’t have to worry about going out for a walk in the evening. Attended a convention her in Vancouver many years ago attended by people from all over the States. Many commented on the freedom they felt here to walk around freely at all hours of the night. They claimed they never even think about that back home.
I think it’s interesting that the headline is that we’ve had a big drop since February.
In the last 12 months we’ve had
– the 4th warmest April on record
– the 3rd warmest March on record
– the 2nd warmest February on record
– the 2nd warmest January on record
– the warmest December on record
– the warmest November on record
– the 2nd warmest October on record
– the warmest September on record
– the 3rd warmest August on record
– the 3rd warmest July on record
– the 2nd warmest June on record
– the 5th warmest April on record
All of that was without an el Nino.
Yes, when ‘skeptics’ protest that ‘warmists’ make too much of month to month changes when its warming, viola! Here is a leading skeptic announcing a record-breaking 2 month drop.
I wonder how many people realize that this is a weather, not climate phenomenon. I have no doubt that the author knows the difference.
IF global temperature were to magically stay at this month’s average temperature [for forever} then there was no global warming.
If take high peak temperature and were to magically stay at that month’s average- forever then there was some global warming, though one could argue about when it “mostly” started.
But any global warming that is “worth” anything as an idea, is significant future warming {which hasn’t happened yet].
And it’s similar to the plague from China, the concern is will it get worst than it’s already been.
Or some think if we remove all “lockdown measures” in the US tommorrow, then is we get twice as much deaths and twice as much serious illness within the near future. And near future would be
by say, Sept 2020.
Or present situation is not the effect more 1 year in the future, rather it’s months in the future- whether it’s less 2 months or as much as 6 months.
Or “forever” with Chinese virus is about +1 year, with climate is practically about 20 years. As within 12 years we are DOOMED.
Though one could say within 50 years we are “really doomed!”
Or “forever” from climate could be as much as 50 years and “forever” for virus could be 2-3 years.
But one could say the focus with Chinese virus is mostly months, which some claiming could be worse then what we already have experienced. Though of course part of what have experienced is crash in economic activity, and many suffering from this imposed hardship {and some aren’t having much suffering- a little inconvenient, is what I count it as}.
Now if we end national lockdown tomorrow, and is not much of consequent of lifting it, then people are going to question whether the lockdown was “worth it” but mostly they will backseat drive, the chosen route taken- imagining if only did —— it would have been better.
But what is important now and in the future, is the prediction of what happened if end lockdown now, or in 2 weeks from now, and how it’s done- rip off bandage, or take gradual cautious steps to test the waters, before ending completely the lockdown.
Which nation are you talking about?
The irony of a successful lockdown is that the numbers stay low and critics then announce that there was no problem, giving nature the credit for wise human decision-making.
What is a successful lockdown? Who or what is locked down? How would you gauge success? You clearly havent given the matter any thought. Try again, but use at least a modicum of logic.
Too early to know what a successful lockdown looks like, usually one quarantine the people infected- and not entire nations- and the entire world.
One could say that China pretty used to being in lockdown- and kicked out news reporters and going absolute total state propaganda.
As is widely known, China’s military future is planning bioweapons, space dominance, and cyber warfare as key to future wars.
Their space dominance is not working very well, but cyberwarfare is looking pretty good, and we will see about their bioweapon efforts.
But personally, I think nukes work pretty good, but of course there number of steps to take before we get to nuking them from orbit.
Though some people seem to forget, there is more than one country in the world. Countries that have had different responses at different stages of the pandemic, and we can compare them.
Success = fewer deaths from the disease. A complicating factor is the economic repercussions of various policies to contain the pandemic.
Do you have anything cogent to add, or have some half-read articles given you some some half-formed ideas that wiltingly prop up your vacuuous condescension? All evidence points to the latter, at best, but one day you may surprise us and say something intelligent instead of merely belligerent.
That last post to ‘Amazed.’
b,
Fewer deaths than what? A model? An assumption? Check out Belarus and Sweden. Trot out your excuses, and Ill give you some that wont fit your excuses either. Try some more alarmism.
I’ve been watching Sweden, because at one point its figures were very similar to Australia’s on the same day. Of particular note after time and quite different approaches is the very different death rate, although Sweden’s case numbers have also taken off compared to Australia’s. There are various factors to account for, but the difference is stark enough to say with some cponfidence that more stringent restrictions prevent infections and death.
Perhaps you have something coherent to say about that instead of the usual hot air.
Confirmed cases
Australia 6,875
Sweden 23,918
Total deaths
Australia 97
Sweden 2941
Death rate
Australia 1.4%
Sweden 12%
Total tests
Australia 688,656
Sweden 148,500
Tests per capita
Australia 1 in 37 people
Sweden 1 in 68 people
Date of first SARS CoV2 fatality
Australia March 1
Sweden March 11
Both countries had roughly the same number of cases on March 24. Both countries had similar fatalitites early March.
I think there are quite a few Americans on this board, so I looked at the numbers for that country. Top of the list for infections (1.2 million) and total number of tests (8 million), and total fatalities (74,799). The death rate is 6%.
Anyone familiar with stats and the various factors will understand the strong caveats on the numbers. Of course, those folk won’t include anyone telling people to check the figures for other countries, as if somehow when they speak the figures magically get more certain.
And Belarus? While you are at it, remember that influenza epidemics tend to be more severe in winter. Australia and Sweden seasons are reversed. If you are going to say that corona viruses are not season sensitive, ask why colds and influenza like illnesses are more common in winter. Corona virus is responsible for many colds.
Alarmists comparing apples to oranges. Try comparing Sweden (minimal lockdown) with USA, UK, Italy, Spain. Now tell me how many lives your lockdown saved. For more confusion, look at deaths per capita, and draw your conclusions. The future is unknowable.
Flu season in Australia is April to August. COVID infection rate dropped precipitously through April, as did the death rate.
Do you ever check what you say?
US, UK, Italy and Spain were slow to get their lockdowns going. UK was going on about herd immunity while numbers rose, then they changed their tune and slowed the cases with lockdown. Italy had already been well-infected before they imposed lockdown. Same with Spain. And their citizens were not very compliant to begin with (that changed). Go ahead and compare cases and fatalitites with dates that lockdown and other measures were mandated. For example, Italy initiated partial lockdown early March, and imposed the strongest restrictions country wide on March 21. Have a guess what date the infection rates declined from?
You do the numbers for Belarus. You can find all the data you need by searching worldometer coronavirus. That’s all the help I’m giving you, lazybones.
Beg pardon: a near-record breaking 2 month drop.
Correction: the last month in the list should be May, not April.
– the 5th warmest MAY on record
When are RSS and UAH going to resolve their big differences?
Its like when the heavyweight boxing title got confusing with various WBA WBC QED titles.
Are we just going to have to accept that there is no undisputed LT temperature trend?
Nate, Which “big differences” are you looking at?
The RSS TLT series is based on a different base period than the UAH. The RSS data excludes the areas over the Antarctic from 70s to the South Pole and over regions with high mountains, while UAH includes these regions. The RSS TLT is calculated from only one channel of data, their TMT, while the UAH LT is a weighted mixture of MT, TP and LS data and the processing of those channels is different than the RSS TMT.
There are other differences in approach and processing as well, so I wouldn’t expect then to agree.
We get that RSS-TLT and UAH-TLT are fundamentally different. The problem is UAH-TLT is +0.135C/decade while RSS-TLT is +0.212C/decade. That’s a huge difference even considering the fundamental differences.
Yes well put.
‘he RSS TLT is calculated from only one channel of data, their TMT, while the UAH LT is a weighted mixture of MT, TP and LS data and the processing of those channels is different than the RSS TMT.’
If a result is so sensitive to analysis method, then it is not very useful to science.
I suggest that the proper question is: “Which analysis yields the most accurate result”. Don’t forget that there are also other groups and other analytical techniques, it’s not just UAH vs. RSS, though it’s correct that a “Lower Troposphere” analysis is only provided by those two, as far as I am aware.
The original TLT from UAH was a correction to the MSU Channel 2 data, which was influenced by the known stratospheric cooling. There are other ways to “correct” the channel 2 data, such as the TTT from Washington State. RSS also provides a TTT series on their web site, for which the latest global trend is 0.176 K/decade.
All of these efforts must also be corrected for orbital drift in LECT and orbital decay, which makes combining the data from some 13 satellites difficult. With the UAH LT approach, three channels must be combined, including MSU channel 3, which had some serious problems in early years, so much so that RSS TTS data doesn’t start until 1987.
“Both datasets are pretty good and I’ve advocated using the average of the two for a way to decrease the random error contained in both datasets and to reduce the effect of any unforeseen biases we each may have inflicted upon our datasets”
John Christy
Mua bán, nick facebook, cung cấp, tài khoản, facebook, mua, acc facebook. …http://taikhoan.co
Copernicus published the April report.
https://climate.copernicus.eu/surface-air-temperature-april-2020
April-2020 came in at +0.70 which is a slight uptick from March-2020.
The ERA 2mT trend is +0.19C/decade.
“Long-lasting, record-setting heat is roasting zone from California to Texas”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2020/05/05/southwest-record-heat/
As the article states, weather. Are you being alarmist?
That is what upper level ridges do.
The FMA ONI value came in at 0.5. That means we are officially in El Nino though it’s just about as weak as an El Nino can get. In fact, assuming the MAM value comes in < 0.5 then the 2020 El Nino will be the weakest since at least 1950.
b,
Or, not assuming . . . . More pointless speculation masquerading as fact?
The temperature will be dropping so fast from now on you will have to wear a parachute just looking at it
Comment saved. Please nominate a point in the future when you think your prediction will be apparent. We’ll check then.
I’ve made a note as well, although I’ll probably not be organised enough to come back and embarrass Eben with it later. I’ve long since lost count of these claims that it’ll start cooling TOMORROW. I used to go out deep-sea fishing as a kid, and there was a plate on the cabin saying “Free Beer Tomorrow”. I keep wondering if any of these deniers were on board with me at the time.
Missed opportunity, if so – ground bait is always useful.
Perhaps it is no surprise that most deniers are also fundies and creationists; Christianity is basically the 2,000-year-old collective conviction that those currently living will see the apocalypse in their lifetimes. They’ve just inverted it to deny the one that’s actually started.
barry, Elliott, please stop trolling.
averagejon…”n the last 12 months we’ve had
– the 4th warmest April on record
– the 3rd warmest March on record
– the 2nd warmest February on record”
Are you talking about the fudged NOAA/GISS records, which are set using climate models and by eliminating regions with cooler temperatures? For example, NOAA has only 3 reporting stations in California, all of them along the warmer coast. The have one in Canada covering the entire Arctic. And the colder temperatures at high altitude in Bolivia have been eliminated with Bolivia being given a temperature based on averaging temperatures from warmer nearby locales.
With regard to your claims above, you could have fooled me based on my experience in the Vancouver, Canada region. Normally we have mild winters due to the Japanese current but this year our winter was dominated by record cold spells. Even now, in May, the temperatures continue to be below average.
Are you talking about the fudged NOAA/GISS records, which are set using climate models and by eliminating regions with cooler temperatures?
GISTEMP does not use a GCM.
You can find the source code here.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources_v4/
Maybe you can help me now. Where do I find UAH’s source code?
For example, NOAA has only 3 reporting stations in California, all of them along the warmer coast.
Weird. When I got to the NCEI website and search for stations in California I see like 500 of them.
bdg…”GISTEMP does not use a GCM.”
GISS does, Gavin Schmidt and James Hansen of GIS are/were climate modelers.
“When I got to the NCEI website and search for stations in California I see like 500 of them”.
Of course, but NOAA only uses 3 of them in their calculations. I posted a link several times to a direct admission by NOAA that they have slashed their reporting surface stations GLOBALLY from 6000 to less than 1500. If they were using all the 500 stations you claim, 1/3rd of their reporting stations would be in California.
According to chiefio, GHCN has slashed the reporting stations by 90% since 1990.
The Canadian Arctic has many more stations than are used by NOAA. They were using only the station at Eureka, to cover the entire Arctic, last time I looked.
Yes. Hansen does modelling studies. That is something different from the GISTEMP dataset.
Yes. NOAA, NASA, Berkeley Earth, etc. all use a subset of the available stations. If you have reason to believe using all of the stations will significantly change the result then you test that hypothesis. I don’t think you’re going to see much of a difference. The reason I don’t think you’ll see a difference is because reanalysis assimilates many more surface observations plus observations of varying types and varying levels of the atmosphere and the warming trend from those isn’t significantly different. For example…the ERA trend since 1979 is 0.1901C/decade and the Berkeley Earth trend is 0.1898C/decade. ERA assimilates tens of millions of observations every day while BEST is a mere fraction of that. It just doesn’t matter.
The link you have provided many times does not say what you says it does. That is your very own paraphrasing. Here, for the dozenth time, is what they actually say.
“The physical number of weather stations has shrunk as modern technology improved and some of the older outposts were no longer accessible in real time.
However, over time, the data record for surface temperatures has actually grown, thanks to the digitization of historical books and logs, as well as international data contributions.”
https://web.archive.org/web/20130216112541/http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html
I’ve looked and looked, and nowhere do I see NOAA “admitting” that it “slashed” thousands of stations.
That is entirely your spin – and it is wrong because the stations weren’t slashed, the vast majority remain in the GHCN database, and the reason there is thousands more in the past than the present is that only a subset is updated in real-time, and the majority of stations have been added retrospectively.
Which is explained in the source material Chiefio first copied the graph from many years ago…
https://tinyurl.com/gp6z3qp
“Because most instrumental networks were established to monitor local weather and not the long-term climate, there are practical problems in using these data to study climate change. For instance, the records are often not digitized and/or are not readily available outside of the country in which they were measured…
This is not some post-facto rationalization, either. This is the 1997 description of how NOAA acquired historical data for GHCN. Read on and learn.
“When possible, we tapped related projects for potentially useful data. For example, N.C.D.C recently collected and processed station normals for the period 1961-90 as a contribution to WMO (WMO 1996a). On occasion, a WMO member country supplied year/month sequential data in addition to the 30-yr means and other statistics. Upon receipt of such records, the member country was contacted in regard to contributing the time series data to GHCN. The Colonial Era Archives initiative was also tapped in this regard (Peterson and Griffiths 1996). Started as a GHCN subproject to acquire data in very data sparse regions, this initiative digitized early temperature and precipitation records for stations operated by various European countries in their respective overseas colonies. Data for hundreds of early African stations have been incorporated from this source and the digitizing effort has been expanded to Asia and South America (Peterson and Griffiths 1997)…
Pray tell how Colonial Era archives are able to be updated? Answer, they can’t be, they are archives. And this is the form of the majority of the addition to GHCN in 1997. One-time additions that could not be updated, like the then 1500 stations that could be updated regularly. Read on.
“The reasons why the number of stations in GHCN drop off in recent years are because some of GHCN’s source datasets are retroactive data compilations (e.g., World Weather Records) and other data sources were created or exchanged years ago.”
How many years have you continued to promulgate falsehood about this? The great majority of GHCN station data was never available in real time and can’t be updated like the core group stations’ data that NOAA acquires monthly.
The reason there is more data than just the group that regularly update is that NOAA went back through archives and digitised millions of data records.
The irony is that you think stations were ‘slashed’, when in fact, they were added retrospectively. And because you can’t put this together in your brain for some strange reason, you have repeated this dirty little smear for years.
This has been explained to you more than 20 times, with references and links to your own source and the actual source document that first provided and explained changes in station count.
Chiefio has walked back his comments on deliberate deletion, as I have quoted and linked for you before, but it seems some perculiarly targeted dementia has sapped your memory there, too.
“Are you talking about the fudged NOAA/GISS records, which are set using climate models and by eliminating regions with cooler temperatures?”
Cooler temperatures or COOLING temperatures? Before you start your futile search to find evidence that would support your drivel such that anyone would take it seriously, you should take into account that conspiracy ideation is ill-supported by a confusion between a lack of warmth and a lack of warming.
bdgwx, barry, Elliott, please stop trolling.
Dremt…”The moons axial rotation arguments were much more interesting than talking about temperature trends month after month”.
What argument? I thought we had settled conclusively that the Moon does NOT rotate on its axis. Of course, as you claim, there are those who have such a strong appeal to authority they can never look at the facts for themselves.
I just found people’s inability to accept that fascinating.
Yes you also “thought we had settled conclusively” that HIV virus has never been found and does not cause AIDS.
What both of you thought/think has been settled, was settled decades ago, but oppositely to your delusions.
Indeed. I wonder how he explains that the Moon can keep facing the Earth without rotating?
It is rotating – about the Earth/Moon barycenter, and not on its own axis. If it were rotating on its own axis at the same time, we would see all sides of the Moon from Earth.
Elliot, DREMT has been long confused about orbiting and rotating on an axis being independent mechanics. If the moon were rotating on its own axis at any different rate than current, only then would we see all sides of the Moon from Earth.
Orbiting and rotating on an axis are indeed independent mechanics. The Moon is just “orbiting”.
Except Astronomers have identified the two axes that the moon orbits and rotates around, and they are not parallel.
So the moon therefore rotates on its axis as it revolves around the earth on another different axis.
Maybe those who don’t get this should inquire about attending their local junior high school.
The moon “orbits” about a barycenter – a point, not an axis.
Nobody said the moon couldn’t have a bit of “up/down” wobble (libration of latitude) and “side/side” wobble (libration of longitude) whilst it orbits. After all, the moon isn’t held in place by a rigid rod. It’s just gravity doing its thing, as best it can, but it’s not going to be held perfectly in a fixed position the whole time.
Nope it’s not around a point, it’s around a line because it orbits along a plane which is perpendicular to axis of revolution.
The longitudinal libration is because the moon revolves in an elliptical orbit so it doesn’t orbit and rotate at the same speed.
Say something else that is wrong that shows you don’t understand the orbit of the moon.
Yes blob, the libration of longitude is an apparent East-West wobble (side to side, like I said) as viewed from the Earth over time. It’s good that you’re learning some of the basics, finally. No, the moon definitely orbits the Earth-moon barycenter, which is a point and not a line/axis.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycenter
“In astronomy, the barycenter is the center of mass of two or more bodies that orbit one another and is the point about which the bodies orbit.”
You need the axis to fully describe the orbit, which is in a plane perpendicular to the axis.
Saying the moon orbits the earth moon barycenter isn’t telling the whole story.
You are trying to describe the phenomenon of lunar obliquity. There is no orbital axis, but if you were to draw a line through the moon perpendicular to its orbital plane then that line deviates by the line going through the moon’s north and south “poles” by six degrees or so. That is the lunar obliquity. This has been determined by studying the libration of latitude from Earth, and from knowledge of the deviation of the moons orbital plane from the ecliptic.
You could do the same with a moon that does not rotate on its own axis as you see it. As you define lack of axial rotation, a moon moving in this manner would appear to rotate, CW, over the course of the lunar month as viewed from Earth. Thus you could determine where is the north and south “pole” for this moon, and how those poles wobble back and forth over the course of the month, if indeed they did. Then, with knowledge of how the moon’s orbital plane deviates from the ecliptic plus the observations of the moon’s libration of latitude, if present, you could determine the lunar obliquity…and this is all in a moon that you would consider not to be rotating on its own axis. Therefore axial rotation is not proven by lunar obliquity.
“You could do the same with a moon that does not rotate on its own axis as you see it. As you define lack of axial rotation, a moon moving in this manner would appear to rotate, CW, over the course of the lunar month as viewed from Earth. Thus you could determine where is the north and south ‘pole’ for this moon, and how those poles wobble back and forth over the course of the month, if indeed they did.”
“would appear to rotate” ‘pole’ ‘if indeed they did’
Or, much simpler and less erroneous: this is compelling evidence that it does rotate around real poles.
It reminds me of the great lengths they went to with the whole development of epicycles, to avoid the much simpler Sun-centered model, because it conflicted with what became their religious belief.
There are planned missions to land near these imaginary lunar ‘poles’.
Bob, You should ask him how we know where these lunar poles even are, if it has no rotational axis.
Since it is a rotational axis that DEFINES where a planet’s poles are.
#2
You are trying to describe the phenomenon of lunar obliquity. There is no orbital axis, but if you were to draw a line through the moon perpendicular to its orbital plane then that line deviates by the line going through the moon’s north and south “poles” by six degrees or so. That is the lunar obliquity. This has been determined by studying the libration of latitude from Earth, and from knowledge of the deviation of the moons orbital plane from the ecliptic.
You could do the same with a moon that does not rotate on its own axis as you see it. As you define lack of axial rotation, a moon moving in this manner would appear to rotate, CW, over the course of the lunar month as viewed from Earth. Thus you could determine where is the north and south “pole” for this moon, and how those poles wobble back and forth over the course of the month, if indeed they did. Then, with knowledge of how the moon’s orbital plane deviates from the ecliptic plus the observations of the moon’s libration of latitude, if present, you could determine the lunar obliquity…and this is all in a moon that you would consider not to be rotating on its own axis. Therefore axial rotation is not proven by lunar obliquity.
Or stand on the moon and watch the stars rotate in the sky.
The poles are where the stars rotate in a circle straight above you.
Exactly, Svante…there are many such ways to determine where the “poles” might be, which don’t involve any proof of axial rotation. Just the way the moon moves in its orbit.
Yes, it will be very obvious when you stand there.
You are absolutely still, but the universe is rotating around you.
No, not at all. Of course your location would be changing wrt the fixed stars, since orbital motion necessitates such a change of orientation. You would be on the moon, which is moving around in a big ellipse. Nobody is arguing that it faces the same fixed star throughout this motion.
“The poles are where the stars rotate in a circle straight above you.”
Yes Svante. And the Moon has an AXIAL TILT of 6.67 degrees.
Not sure how it can have an axial tilt without an axis. But Im sure DREMT can manage it.
Rotation happens when there is angular velocity relative to an inertial reference frame. A reference frame fixed on the stars is inertial. The Moon has angular velocity on that reference frame. Therefore the Moon is rotating.
There would be a similar problem if you said a passenger in a car was not accelerating because you arbitrarily decided to use the non-inertial reference frame fixed on the car. Same fallacy; just with translation instead of rotation in this case.
“Rotation happens when there is angular velocity relative to an inertial reference frame. A reference frame fixed on the stars is inertial. The Moon has angular velocity on that reference frame. Therefore the Moon is rotating.”
Already covered this:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-469405
bdgwx, DREMT’s continual confusion was already pointed out:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-469500
…and I immediately set you straight:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-469556
-The Moon has an orbital axis.
-The Moon has a SEPARATE rotational axis.
-This axis determines where its poles are.
-There is an axial tilt of 6.67 degrees between the rotational axis and the orbital axis.
-On the Moon the stars move in circles around the rotational axis, not the orbital axis.
-Concepts like POLES and AXIAL TILT cannot even be defined without a rotational axis.
These are the facts that are universally agreed upon.
There is no amount of hand-waving gobbledegook that DREMT can give that can explain these facts as ‘JUST ORBITING’.
We’ve been thru all this before. The rerunning of this argument tape turns out the same everytime, and DREMT is wrong each time.
For completeness another couple of Moon facts.
-The Moons rotational angular velocity around its rotational axis is CONSTANT due to conservation of angular momentum.
-The Moons orbital angular velocity around its orbital axis is NOT FIXED, due to its elliptical orbit varying its distance from its orbital axis.
-As a result, we do not see the same face of the Moon. The longitudinal range that we see varies during its orbit. The Moon wobbles side-to-side.
DREMT will declare that he can explain these facts as JUST ORBITING, but he never actually does.
#2
and I immediately set you straight:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-469556
Yes we have heard:
“The Moon is just ‘orbiting’.” is your declaration.
But once again it can’t explain the facts, as noted above.
As Feynman said, if your theory doesnt agree with observations, its wrong.
Now repeat your declaration as much as you want, but it won’t change the facts.
#3
and I immediately set you straight:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-469556
You were right Nate, he did repeat his empty declaration.
Oh, I see your confusion. No, I no longer communicate with commenter “Nate”. If I see he has written a comment to me, I simply repeat whatever my previous comment was, regardless of context. I keep doing this until he stops responding to me.
It’s proving quite effective so far.
I see, very clever of you.
Comparatively so, I guess, thanks.
Compared to how dumb you have to be to keep responding to somebody you know isn’t communicating with you any more.
He’s ‘not responding’ by responding. Tricky that.
#2
Comparatively so, I guess, thanks.
Compared to how dumb you have to be to keep responding to somebody you know isnt communicating with you any more.
I don’t need a response to point out the flaws in your arguments. You have no sensible answers anyway.
#3
Comparatively so, I guess, thanks.
Compared to how dumb you have to be to keep responding to somebody you know isnt communicating with you any more.
Do not feed the troll.
Yes, don’t respond to barry. For anyone else that’s interested in the subject, these should help you get up to speed:
https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/famous-scientific-illusions
https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/moons-rotation
https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/moons-rotation-follow-up
..
No sports on right now, so they just showing reruns of old classic games.
DREMT has this idea.
But he keeps rerunning the same lopsided losses that weve all seen a dozen times.
He keeps hoping against hope that this time around they will turn out different.
But, of course reality never changes. Basic physics hasnt been revised.
These are not classics. And booooring….
#2
Yes, dont respond to barry. For anyone else thats interested in the subject, these should help you get up to speed:
https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/famous-scientific-illusions
https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/moons-rotation
https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/moons-rotation-follow-up
When you gonna grow up?
#3
Yes, dont respond to barry. For anyone else thats interested in the subject, these should help you get up to speed:
https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/famous-scientific-illusions
https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/moons-rotation
https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/moons-rotation-follow-up
Richard Greene…”Much more important are the details: Warming is mainly at high (cold) latitudes, mainly during the six coldest months of the year, and mainly at night”.
Don’t forget the most important metric. The warming ‘spots’ in the Arctic move around month to month.
The archives of UAH temperature contour maps:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/archives.html
March 2020….note all the blue around the North Pole:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2020/march/202003_map.png
April 2019:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2019/April2019/201904_map.png
barry…”And yet the data in real terms would be unchanged, and the trends that might be calculated from these data would all be exactly the same no matter where the baseline was”.
Without a baseline there are no anomalies. An anomaly is a departure from an average over a range.
When you look at each anomaly on the UAH graph, the anomaly temperature is meaningless. They cannot be translated into absolute temperatures. Each anomaly is relative to the defined baseline.
If you defined the baseline on the year 1998, with a global average well above average, anomalies from ensuing years would all be below the baseline, except for 2016. On the other hand, if you defined the baseline on cooler years, as is the practice of NOAA and GISS, anomalies from ensuing years would appear warmer than they are.
Of course the anomalies can be translated back into absolute temperatures! You work out the average absolute temmperature for the baseline period, and then add that value to each anomaly and viola! You have your absolute global temps back. It’s not even hard. GISS give you the absolute value somewhere on their pages. Maybe the other institutions do the work for you. Roy has probably done so, somewhere, and Bindidon is able to give you the value by examining the UAH data files. The information is all public domain.
This nonsense about warming not “truly beginning” until anomalies turn positive is just incredibly wrong and stupid. The baseline does not define the actual system as being ‘cold’ or ‘warm’ just because of the sign of the anomalies. You can’t use anomalies for quantitave judgements like that. They are useful for plotting the behaviour of the system.
If you drop the baseline by 10 degrees C, what changes? Nothing. The change from one data point to another remains the same, and the trends derived from those data remain exactly the same. You’d be an idiot to say that the system was now “incredibly” warm, just because the baseline made it look so.
Bah! Incredulity causes typos:
You cant use anomalies for qualitative judgements like that.
GR said: If you defined the baseline on the year 1998, with a global average well above average, anomalies from ensuing years would all be below the baseline, except for 2016. On the other hand, if you defined the baseline on cooler years, as is the practice of NOAA and GISS, anomalies from ensuing years would appear warmer than they are.
No. It does not matter where you put the baseline. The anomaly values are not cooler or warmer either way.
Think about it this way. F and C are both anomaly based scales themselves. F is baselined on the freezing point of a salt brine solution whereas C is baselined on the freezing point of pure water. Is 32F warmer than 0C because Fahrenheit decided to use a cooler baseline vs. Celsius’ baseline? No, of course not.
Gordo, It’s well known that the satellite brightness temperature anomalies can be converted back to “absolute”(??) temperatures. UAH provides the average temperature data, which even you could add to the monthly zonally averaged data to make the reversion.
And, as I’ve pointed out before, the short term month-to-month variation in anomaly values aren’t important, it’s the trend of the time series which tells us what’s happening.
barry
” Of course the anomalies can be translated back into absolute temperatures! ”
Correct!
” You work out the average absolute temmperature for the baseline period, and then add that value to each anomaly and voila! You have your absolute global temps back. ”
Not quite so.
Exactly as anomalies, as understood by all people working with them, are not simply obtained by subtracting the average absolute temperature for the baseline period from absolute values, conversely absolute values cannot simply obtained back that way.
The reason is that anomalies are not only departures from a mean; they are also the result of removing the seasonal dependencies (what Roy Spencer names ‘the annual cycle’) out of the time series.
Thus, for a monthly time series, a baseline is not a single value: it is a vector of 12 values, each being the average of all corresponding monthly values within the reference period.
Things become even a bit more complicated when you have a grid: in this case, each grid cell has its own 12-month baseline vector, like e.g. in
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/tltmonacg_6.0
This file contains 12 grids, one per month; each grid contains in each of its cells the average value of all absolute values for this month in the years 1981 till 2010.
If you now would need daily anomalies, you then must construct a vector of daily averages, like in
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/daily/data/N_seaice_extent_climatology_1981-2010_v3.0.csv
J.-P. D.
Yes, Bindidon, monthly averages are more complicated. And there is more complication when converting anomalies to regional or local absolutes.
barry, bdgwx, Swanson, please stop trolling.
Note….remove hyphen (-) in ncd-c
https://www.ncd-c.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/dyk/anomalies-vs-temperature
I think the message here is that it’s easier to fudge the temperature record using anomalies than it is when absolute temperatures are used.
What dataset do you use as the gold standard for adjudicating whether other datasets are “fudging” their records?
b,
Dataset claiming to represent what, exactly? Be specific. Surface temperature? Near surface temperature? What about the oceans (most of the Earths surface)? Adjusted for altitude and season, cloud cover etc? How?
Don’t be silly. If you cannot specify what you are questioning, baiting people (trolling) just makes you look as foolish as you are.
Amazed,
BGDWX and his brethren are trying to change science. All data sets must conform to the gospel.
Yeah, and black is white.
UAH does not conform to the consensus and yet I still give it equal weight and defend it.
It’s now showing a 0.14C/decade warming trend. Sounds pretty consensual to me.
Boy, does Stephen ever have it backwards. It’s ‘skeptics’ that rubbish every global temperature data set but one, and realists who realize they are all imperfect with different strengths and weaknesses.
Elliot, I don’t think UAH conforms to the consensus. Most datasets are closer to +0.19C/decade from 1979-present.
BEST: +0.190C/decade
GISS: +0.191C/decade
ERA: +0.190C/decade
RSS: +0.212C/decade
UAH: +0.135C/decade
RATPAC: +0.18C/decade
This is a mix of station, balloon, satellite, and reanalysis. If I were to equally weight each of these I get +0.183C/decade. UAH deviates from the mean by almost 0.05C/decade.
SPA, If you have another dataset you want me to throw into the mix I’d be more than happy to include it. Remember, being skeptical means exploring all available data and lines of evidence.
No, you constantly point out that UAH data set is an outlier and that Dr. Spencer won’t share his source code with you when you should be questioning the remarkable conformity of all the other data sets.
And yet ‘we’ also use it here without denigrating it. And ‘we’ use other data sets also.
UAH being an outlier is an observation worth noting. It’s also worth noting – when ‘skeptics’ have for years trashed gl temp data sets when they could access (or just find) the data and source code – that UAH does not provide it.
Had.CRU suffers from a lack of coverage at poles, but at least doesn’t interpolate. GISS UHI correction is potentially less than optimal, and it interpolates where there is no coverage. RSS has less coverage than UAH. Berkley Earth… doesn’t seem to have many disadvantages that come to mind, and yet it is still another estimate, not gospel. All the surface records contain adjustments, because the raw data has problems. All the satellite records have adjustments because the raw data has problems.
See, I can comfortably talk about the weaknesses of any data set without needing to trash it, or to favour one over another. So can any of the realists here.
No, Stephen, it is your ilk that pick the data set that fits the ideology and trashes the rest.
“when you should be questioning the remarkable conformity of all the other data sets.”
Oh look, a hint at a conspiracy theory. All the alarmists are conniving and fudgy, but the plucky skeptics’ data set is better because they’re plucky and anti-establishment.
barry, please stop trolling.
I note that the global temperature has dropped to 0.38 degrees c anomaly and I hope that it will continue to fall although we cannot be sure it will. I do not identify with being part of the northern hemisphere so I don’t care about that. I watch our local weather as it happens on the internet so I don’t need to find out what it was last month.
“I note that the global temperature has dropped to 0.38 degrees c anomaly and I hope that it will continue to fall although we cannot be sure it will.”
We living in an Ice Age, why do want temperatures to be cooler?
Sunspot number: 0
What is the sunspot number?
Updated 09 May 2020
Spotless Days
Current Stretch: 7 days
2020 total: 98 days (75%)
2019 total: 281 days (77%)
2018 total: 221 days (61%)
2017 total: 104 days (28%)
2016 total: 32 days (9%)
About week ago had quite few little spots, but they faded fast.
Debate regarding differences in reported average global temperatures ignores the 800 lb gorilla in the room: Water vapor.
It is not actually very hard to calculate the expected water vapor increase as a result of temperature increase. Also, WV increase has been measured using satellite instrumentation. WV calculated from Had-CRUT4 temperatures is compared to measured WV at https://drive.google.com/open?id=1XFc92GAl-NXOqwiJKiAZzfEbb9x4BKND
The trends show that WV has been increasing faster than possible from temperature increase (feedback). This was corroborated by similar calculations using temperatures reported by UAH, NASA, RSS, and GISS. Therefore the alarmist’s contention that warming initiated due to CO2 increase is impossible.
“Therefore the alarmist’s contention that warming initiated due to CO2 increase is impossible.”
Dan, you can’t keep your own stories straight since you wrote many times earlier: “(I) contend that CO2 has no significant effect on climate in spite of its being a ghg.”
Which is it then: 1) warming initiated due to CO2 increase is impossible or 2) has no significant effect?
And proper debate does not ignore WV. Proper debate knows humidity at the equator affects near surface temperature (atm. emissivity looking up) more than at the less humid poles & this is taken into account.
Ball,
They are both true. More CO2 makes more emitters available in the stratosphere which has a cooling effect so the over-all effect of added CO2 might even be slight cooling.
I never claimed that they ignore WV; it’s that they account for it incorrectly. They calculate WV increase based on temperature increase instead of using actual WV measurements.
More humidity produces warming throughout troposphere (except, as pointed out at the end of Section 3 in https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com , near the poles where humidity is always low because of the cold).
Debate is of little use when some participants have been falsely indoctrinated and are unaware of their misguided perceptions. As Mark Twain said “It is far easier to fool someone than to convince them that they have been fooled”.
“They calculate”
Who is they? Meteorologists have roamed the globe measuring wv looking up through the column to use in atm. emissivity studies, wv through the column with soundings, and satellites measure the wv looking down through the column. Humidity is daily continuously measured by weather stations around the globe.
Precipitable wv in the column can also be calculated* but it’s messy which is why meteorologists much prefer to use the proper measurements rather than to calculate wv and humidity as you incorrectly write.
Since you write “they” account for it incorrectly you MUST have an example to show where practicing meteorologists do the calculation incorrectly. Otherwise you have no basis for the claim, like many around here. So show it.
Look up definitions for impossible and insignificant as your claim they are the same is preposterous. Maybe a dictionary will help you keep your stories straight, not contradict yourself showing lack of understanding even basic meteorology.
*To be the least bit credible here, your task then is to show their incorrect calculation and your valid corrections for their calculation.
NB: Selected beginning atm. thermo. texts show how to do the precipitable wv calculation; consulting one would help you learn how to do the calculation properly & maybe even show us you can do so. But from your comments I doubt you can do that.
“so the over-all effect of added CO2 might even be slight cooling.”
That would take a power source and CO2 does not have one so its passive temperature changes due its ppm changes at near atm. surface and upper regions have to cancel to follow conservation of energy i.e. Sam Clemens was right.
Ball,
The ‘they’ referred to are the GCMs. Sorry that wasn’t clear. They (the GCMs) calculate WV change based on temperature change and keeping relative humidity constant.
Your statement that I claimed that impossible and insignificant are the same is what is preposterous. As you should realize, initiated by CO2 and [after being initiated] CO2 can have no significant effect [the CO2 might be very slightly either warming or cooling of what the trend would be if there were no CO2 effect] are compatible.
I have never claimed any skill in meteorology and have no interest in gaining any. Meteorology is quite good at predicting weather for a few days but contributes little to and perhaps interferes with understanding climate change.
Your last paragraph indicates that you misunderstood my statement. Probably my fault. Replace ‘slight cooling’ with ‘reduction of the warming that would occur with increased WV if there were no effect from CO2’.
Edit per Dan: “More CO2 makes more emitters available in the stratosphere which has a cooling effect so the over-all effect of added CO2 might even be reduction of the warming that would occur with increased WV if there were no effect from CO2.”
Dan, that edited wording makes so little sense I’m appalled. It confirms your claim you have no skill in meteorology & yet you are attempting to point out errors within the meteorologist’s GCMs. Try again.
Let’s helpfully try the substitution “GCM” for “they”:
“it’s that GCMs account for it incorrectly. GCMs calculate WV increase based on temperature increase instead of using actual WV measurements.”
That doesn’t make any helpful sense either. How could GCMs use actual WV measurements except at given GCM initial conditions? Continuously re-initialized GCMs do predict the weather a few days out well enough to make personal weekend plans that usually work out well enough to pay attention to weather reports.
Your second paragraph is so unintelligible that no helpful comment is possible.
Ball,
I doubt that you are as dense as you display.
If you do not have anything rational to say about the observation that water vapor is increasing faster than possible from temperature increase and that this demonstrates that the alarmist’s contention that warming initiated due to CO2 increase is impossible then further discussion would be merely a distraction.
Dan, I agree there is no progress to be made until you obtain some skill in the field of meteorology.
You will learn from study in that field: 1) near surface atm. warming initiated due to CO2 increase is possible and 2) has no significant effect if by significant is meant much more than the predicted and subsequently measured/observed ~0.075C/decade increase including all the natural humidity changes.
May 7, 2020 at 3:20 am
A new pause.
Interesting.
“ The time series for CryoSat/SMOS total volume shows April 2020 a lower relative to the 2011-2020 period while PIOMAS shows a bit of an uptick. Neither time series indicates a trend over the past 10 years contrasting the drastic thinning over the last 40-years.”
God help you if you are not a member of the climate club. That post would leave you completely in the dark.
Yes barry, the comments there
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/05/06/new-paper-body-condition-of-barents-sea-polar-bears-increased-since-2004-despite-sea-ice-loss/
are really amazing.
J.-P. D.
barry, Bindidon, please stop trolling.
The gold standard of fudging the records is right here
You cannot change your data 15 years back so dramatically making change 10 times bigger than your error range and claim you know what you are doing at the same time ,
You lost your credibility.
https://bit.ly/2SIxtkM
You are so right…
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah5/from:2000/mean:12/plot/uah5/from:2000/trend/plot/uah6/from:2000/to:2017.5/mean:12/plot/uah6/from:2000/to:2017.5/trend
barry
I guess the commentator you replied to has picked up this climate4you chart out of one of these dumb blogs like hockeyschtick, Trickszone or similar.
Otherwise he would have seen, on the climate4you blog, the complement UAH chart:
https://www.climate4you.com/images/MSU%20UAH%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage%20With201505Reference.gif
When comparing Ole Humlum’s UAH chart with his RSS chart
https://www.climate4you.com/images/MSU%20RSS%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage%20With201505Reference.gif
you immediately understand that Humlum is the gold standard for brute force manipulation.
Because while in the UAH chart, he compares the tiny updates within UAH6.0, he compares in the RSS chart the RSS4.0 with the previous 3.3 revision, what inevitably leads to the manifestly intended distortion, with as goal to show UAH as the good guy and RSS as the bad boy.
If Humlum was a honest person, he would have of course compared, in the UAH chart, 6.0 with 5.6, exactly as you did.
I made a chart showing the revision differences within UAH and RSS:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1X99gyBBRosO-pIT1LLguYbf9Q3QeQ0XL/view
J.-P. D.
I knew there was something wrong with Eben’s chart when the RSSv3 data was truncated in 2015, even though it goes to October 2018.
I see what you mean about Humlum’s deception. He presents so neutral, but if you know the data, he’s really pulled a swifty with the UAH/RSS graphs.
Wow, pretty sleazy..
barry, Bindidon, please stop trolling.
I’ve been saving predictions. Eben’s comment upthread reminded me.
ScottR said on July 10 2019:
“Seems to me, the leaders are saying we are going into a La Nina. 1+2 is ICE cold JUST like Antarctica (which Bindidon will tell you doesn’t matter) because that is where that water comes from. The lagging region 4 will plummet shortly.”
Two months later, on September 13:
“3.4 region has just made a fresh 52 week low this morning @ -.509.
1+2 has made a fresh low @ -1.446
This confirms once again the trend is lower as of today. Still heading towards La Nina.”
Fail
ENSO remained very close to neutral for the last half of 2019, and headed into el Nino condiditions in 2020. Though NOAA’s chart has crossed the el Nino threshhold, their advisory is that neutral conditions are present and expected to persist.
MEI v2
2019 0.08 0.52 0.77 0.33 0.26 0.35 0.24 0.30 0.15 0.27 0.45 0.41
2020 0.29 0.30 0.15 -0.11
Scott R is to such an extent in love with cooling, GSM, Zharkova etc etc, that it is a bit hard to trust him.
Ideology is rarely a good advisor.
barry, Bindidon, please stop trolling.
I find the point of view in these posts interesting.
The lead few paragraphs emphasize the 2nd largest drop in some metric to which no one previously gave much thought, that is, the two month drop.
Under the lede there’s discussion that the trend has increased to 0.14/decade. Which in reality means 0.1349 or so has gone to 0.1351 or so which is pretty negligible difference excepting that it’s amplified by the conventions of rounding to two decimal places.
For the linear trend to have increased however slightly it follows that this month’s data is above the trend (about 0.05 C if one does the math). So one might just as well say that this month was pretty much what one would expect, only a bit higher.
And the “2nd largest drop” is largely down to the fact that February was exceptionally high under weak El Nino conditions while April is unexceptional. February was in fact the highest (anomaly – linear trend) month outside of a strong (87-88) or very strong (97-98, 15-16) El Nino event.
https://tinyurl.com/ycw4ydbo
Pretty good summation, Mark.
I had a big laugh as I read somewhere above:
” According to chiefio, GHCN has slashed the reporting stations by 90% since 1990.
The Canadian Arctic has many more stations than are used by NOAA. They were using only the station at Eureka, to cover the entire Arctic, last time I looked. ”
Ha ha ha haaa!
Robertson and Smith: that is the perfect duo.
I will never forget this Smith guy writing in 2009, in his ridiculous ‘chiefio’ boaster blog, about a ‘Great Dying of the Thermometers’ in Canada:
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/10/27/ghcn-up-north-blame-canada-comrade/
This is really one of the dumbest, most ignorant posts I have ever read.
Manifestly, Smith suddenly discovered at that time that the GHCN V2 directory was nearly empty.
But… he did not notice that exactly at this time, NOAA moved all V2 data to the new, freshly born V3 directory.
And of course Robertson has to fall for such chess! No wonder.
Here are a few GHCN daily Canadian stations located in the Arctic…
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Kh2Sc8Yf-t3kjXhVF9jwPPPnoHVbIxt2/view
Of course: according to genius Robertson, NOAA never uses them.
They even do not exist! Their data is generated automatically by… a model!
But for heaven’s sake: don’t tell it anyone, keep it secret.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon, clicked on the last link and it said I needed permission, so now an email is being sent to my gmail account??
May I suggest using https://imgur.com/ as a place to host your graphs? It loads fast and is free.
Thanks barry, I didn’t see that Google Drive has changed its modus operandi!
Moving away from there is a problem: I stored over 200 charts in the place.
Is it OK now?
Yep, it’s loading.
GHCN daily hasx heaps of stations. But to play devil’s advocate, how many are in GHCN monthly?
(Forgive me, but whenever I delive into GHCN, I need to download programs to access some of their data – I don’t have the spare time, or the inclination to find the time, to learn to use those applications)
Bindidon, barry, please stop trolling.
Has anybody managed to demonstrate the heating property of CO2 using a real heat source, a real thermometer and real CO2? Please post your actual results. Specifications of your heat source, thermometer and purity and concentration of your CO2 are required in sufficient detail so that others may replicate your results.
No analogies, please.
Standard part of the physics curriculum in British schools. Ask any kid: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/5220812.pdf
There is no dispute that CO2 absorbs infrared and heats up, just basic fizzix , the dispute is that this experiment of gas in the glass box in no way represents atmosphere on the planet, if anything it shows only the part how CO2 heats up when exposed to the infrared it doesn’t show anything about the other half of the equation how it cools down when the light is removed , Just like the idiotic climate energy models where the earth and the atmosphere is flat and static and the sun shines 24/7 with 240W evenly everywhere,
This is why I make fun of the classroom academics , they are two hundred years backwards behind the people who produce things in real life that actually function .
EB,
Dont be stupid. This demonstration shows that CO2 can be heated. Duh! No CO2 heating properties in evidence. Try making a thermometer hotter by increasing the amount of CO2 between it and the heat source! Or anything else! Put a slab of rock wool between your heat lamp and your thermometer – watch the temperature drop. Rock wool is an even better insulator than CO2.
Are the teachers in the UK really as dumb as you suggest? Do they believe the rubbish they are forced to teach?
The temperature will be dropping so fast from now on you will keep looking up at the sky thinking the satellite must be falling.
Arf.
Has anyone mentioned that Mike Mann was just elected to the NAS?
If ever there was proof that climate $cience (a/k/a climastrology, a psuedoscience) is hopelessly corrupt and has been politicized by bad actors intent on achieving the political goals they would not otherwise be able to accomplish by co-opting science, the election of Michael “Piltdown” Mann to the NAS is it.
“Piltdown” Mann is the antithesis of science and scientific method.
John Garrett
And you, Garrett, are the most obvious contrast to someone who would be able to judge a scientist like Michael Mann.
Not only do you lack the knowledge, but above all the will to be free of prejudice.
You are nothing more than a discrediting and denigrating person.
J.-P. Dehottay
Principal Components Analysis ?
Bristlecone pine tree rings ?
A graph cobbled together by appending instrument-measured temperatures to proxy-derived temperatures ?
Where is that data archived ?
Beyond those mortal sins, all that’s necessary to accurately assess the character and intentions of “Piltdown” Mann is to observe his behavior and read his protestations.
“Piltdown” Mann is a fraud and a charlatan (and the tenor of his responses show that he knows it).
Garrett
Your reply perfectly confirms what a bad, disgusting person you are.
I already replied to your stupid claim concerning PCA, in use by several people all around the world, especially by Valentina Zharkova.
You know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about what you woefully discredit here.
Nothing!
You are such a coward, Garrett.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
“[Endless list of names] please stop trolling.”
Real Dr. Roy, do we really have to endure this pointless peasant spamming the exact same phrase month in, month out? Can’t you have him shot, or something?
Cant you just stop trolling?
Yeah, why cant we all just get along and agree with all the made up physics!
#2
Cant you just stop trolling?
Elliott…”Real Dr. Roy, do we really have to endure this pointless peasant spamming…”
Why would someone who supports a clown like Michael Mann appeal to Roy for justice? Mann hates Roy, UAH, and everything they stand for. Mann hates science period and NAS should change their nym to NACC, the National Academy of Climate Clowns.
It’s like they’re so self-important they actually believe Dr Spencer wants a bunch of Skeptical Science drones commenting here in greater numbers than actual skeptics. Like Dr Spencer is going to gladly do their bidding, rather than his actual job.
Extremely frosty air will now be moving over the northeast US.
https://images.tinypic.pl/i/01005/o6aorsgv5igd.png
ren…”Extremely frosty air will now be moving over the northeast US”.
How’s things going? Getting through this covid bs OK?
It’s a bit cool at night here too in the Pacific Northwest. Coolest spring I can remember for a long time.
You can go back now as far as 32 years to see the same temperature as today ,
In 2019 just a year back and at the ending of the chart the temperature was the same as in 1980 just a year from the start of the chart with a span of 39 years
why is the the little up and down noise in between of any meaning ? it isn’t .
The point being as long as the highs and lows meet you have no trend because you haven’t even risen above the noise level, something the resident wannabee scientists on this blog do not comprehend.
Beware of the deluded classroom academics who keep drawing straight lines through snippets of data , calling it “trends” and projecting it 100 years into the future , they have no idea how a climate system works
Global warming has stopped!
Again!
https://tinyurl.com/y8ezo9my
Eben said: The point being as long as the highs and lows meet you have no trend because you haven’t even risen above the noise level, something the resident wannabee scientists on this blog do not comprehend.
First, that is factually and mathematically incorrect. The warming trend is statistically significant.
Second, later lows are higher than earlier highs.
Third, the atmosphere takes up maybe 3% or so of Earth’s energy imbalance and is highly variable due to various heat flux processes. If instead we switch to the hydrosphere which takes at least 90% of the imbalance you’ll see that the later low are much higher than earlier highs…by like a lot.
Svante, bdgwx, please stop trolling.
Must watch video:
https://canadafreepress.com/article/dr.-anthony-faucis-ex-employee-was-jailed-finally-tells-all
Anderson
Instead of posting such nonsense, better watch this
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/
every day.
binny…”Instead of posting such nonsense, better watch this”
You stupid, bone-headed jerk. The video posted by Stephen Paul Anderson is vital to our democracy. The woman was arrested for nothing, she was held for no reason and spent considerable time in jail, and it was due to Anthony Fauci, the blithering idiot who is now advising the US on covid19.
I have always regarded him as a dishonest creep and Nobelist Kary Mullis, did not mince words over Fauci, calling him an ****ole.
At the end of this video, Fauci can be seen giving a speech in which he is warning US citizens that an epidemic is imminent in the next couple of years. It seems apparent he knew this covid contagion was coming and the lady being interviewed gives evidence that Fauci has connection to a Wuhan lab where Fauci’s department has been trading data with them.
The woman being interviewed is a researcher who claims Fauci has patents on a vaccine. She is warning, based on her experience as a scientist, that such a vaccine, or any flu vaccine that is based on animal products, can potentially spread a covid-type infection.
She has almost gone so far as to say the spread of this virus is intentional. This is a woman who worked for Fauci and became a whistle-blower trying to expose his creepy ways.
Overall, we rate Canada Free Press Questionable based on extreme right wing bias, promotion of conspiracies and numerous false claims.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/canada-free-press/
Ok, so you’re one of those people who gets worked up about conspiracy theories. Isn’t the truth interesting enough?
barry…”Overall, we rate Canada Free Press Questionable based on extreme right wing bias, promotion of conspiracies and numerous false claims”.
Who cares about the messenger, we are concerned with the veracity and integrity of the message. The woman delivering the message is a scientist who has been harassed for speaking out about corruption in her work place.
The mainstream press won’t interview her because they are part of the problem. It’s the same with John CHristy, Roy Spencer, and Richard Lindzen, the media don’t want to know anything about them. They’d rather interview a blatant ****ole like Michael Mann.
Your problem is that you have God-given intelligence which you suppress and override with an appeal to authority and the status quo. Ergo, you are a butt-kisser to conformity and authority. What is it about the real world that scares you so much?
And you take her word for it. You think her story is the truth. There’s no evidence, no documentation, nothing to check whether she has actually uncovered something, or whether she is a disgruntled former employee who wove a narrative to console herself by identifying as some kind of victim. Or hero.
“we are concerned with the veracity and integrity of the message”
And what steps did you take to investigate the circumstances in which the woman left the job? What leads did you follow to authenticate her version of events?
I can already tell you. You did no such diligence, but instead are weaving this story into related conspiracy theories, and believing that the ‘pattern’ provides all the evidence needed.
Conspiracy ideation is not difficult to recognize or parse.
Stephen…”Must watch video:”
I’ll say it’s a must watch. Very important and something I have suspected about Fauci and the HIV/AIDS propagandists for a long time.
Thanks for posting.
You’re going to have to do some selective editing, because the woman clearly believes HIV and AIDS are part and parcel. So your expert witness here will have terribly flawed judgement on the issue she’s trained in according to your own beliefs, but miraculousy keen insight when it comes to padding out other bits of your opinion.
She knows AIDS is caused by HIV virus. You apparently don’t. Are you here to tell us something different?
Leftists do conspire. That’s their main methodology. Leftists believe Government is the solution. So, when we point out the conspiracies then their first reaction is to attack the attacker. You’re paranoid! Prove it! All the while they deny, deny, deny. It’s in Alinsky’s playbook. You can provide a mountain of evidence and the leftist response is, “That’s all you got?” So, you need to come up with evidence that what she’s saying isn’t true. Her evidence is the historical record.
Gordon thinks it’s a lie that AIDS is caused by HIV.
I was talking about his opinion. Learn to read.
Where is this montain of evidence?
Evidence is NOT ‘This person said some things and they must be true.’
Nor is it ‘This person said some things and it relates to different things someone else said.’
Evidentiary standards for conspiracy theorists? Pffffft.
I wish our resident skeptics would be even a tiny bit skeptical of stuff they find on the internet. Just do a bit of googling to check the facts in a video.
Is that so much to ask?
For example:
“Mikovits claims that she ‘taught’ Ebola cells in a U.S. Army laboratory at Fort Detrick how to infect human cells in 1999, effectively saying that she weaponized the disease against humans.
‘Ebola couldnt infect human cells until we took them in the laboratories and taught them,’ states Mikovits.”
She must have also had a time machine to take those manipulated Ebola back to 1970s Africa where the first human Ebola breakouts were reported.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebola_virus_disease
“You can provide a mountain of evidence and the leftist response is, Thats all you got? So, you need to come up with evidence that what shes saying isnt true. Her evidence is the historical record”
The evidence is her version of history.
Other people’s version of history does not agree with hers.
Fauci denies what she claims about him.
Her employer claims she removed lab books after being fired.
A coworker says he helped her take the material.
The police say they did have a warrant.
The police say that she was charged with a crime.
Do any of these people deserve to be believed?
Why only her?
“So, you need to come up with evidence that what shes saying isnt true. Her evidence is the historical record”
This.
This is point blank the moronic thinking of conspiracy theorists.
Someone said something, it seems true to me, so unless you can prove it not true, it’s true.
I mean it’s just plain moronic. How do these people even dress themselves?
barry’s more than happy to go off-topic, so long as the subject interests him. If not, then going off-topic is bad.
The topic is very relevant to many posters here, even you, DREMT.
It is why one shouldnt believe anything you find on the internet just because it aligns with your beliefs.
Its about learning the facts and background, before judging if an internet video or blog is accurate.
#2
barry’s more than happy to go off-topic, so long as the subject interests him. If not, then going off-topic is bad.
I remember the good old times (about 6 weeks ago or so) where “data crack” (self-description) W. Eschenbach explained us at WUWT that the US would be, with around 5 deaths per million people, far far from being endangered by COVID-19…
In between, the US have entered the top ten of that stat (last column):
BE 51420 8415 16 737
ES 221447 26070 12 558
IT 215858 29958 14 496
UK 206715 30615 15 460
FR 137779 25987 19 388
NL 41774 5288 13 307
SE 24623 3040 12 299
IE 22385 1403 6 289
US 1256972 75670 6 231
CH 30043 1517 5 178
Btw, we will see how the UK, one more country driven by an irresponsible politician, will do in the next weeks.
The next country of that kind being… Brazil.
Buona notte
J.-P. D.
binny…”In between, the US have entered the top ten of that stat (last column):”
The top ten for what? What are the tests testing for, certainly not a virus?
The current covid tests are converting RNA to DNA and amplifying the DNA after it has been made radioactive. The PCR method for DNA amplification is applied to a small sample of radioactive DNA and it is amplified while illuminated by ultraviolet light, which reacts to radioactivity. When they DNA reaches a multiplication of a certain level the ultraviolet light is reflected in different colours. At that point a person is claimed positive if the level exceeds an arbitrary value.
EVERYBODY would test positive for this DNA/RNA because DNA/RNA is in every cell in the human body. The tests are only measuring a little more RNA in people who are infected with ANYTHING. The viral loading technique is a scam invented for HIV and it has been debunked. Why is it still being used?
What has any of that got to do with testing for a viral load? It is INFERRED that the RNA converted to DNA using a reverse transcriptase enzyme is RNA from Covid 19. They don’t have the slightest shred of scientific evidence to back that claim. It is a presumption and it’s wrong.
There is a perfectly good method for testing for a virus, why is it not being used? It could not be used for HIV because nothing showed up with the standard method. Some idiots reasoned HIV was there but there was so little of it they could not find it using the standard test. So the idiots decided to amplify DNA that was converted from RNA found in an infected person.
Luc Montagnier who won a Nobel for discovering HIV admitted in an hour long interview that he did not purify HIV or see it with an electron microscope. He admitted to inferring its existence, claiming he THOUGHT that 1 in 1000 particles in an infected sample were HIV. He claimed in the same interview, that HIV will not harm a healthy immune system.
Here’s the circular logic for viral loading:
1)A virus is RNA contained in a protein coating
2)RNA is found in infected people (also in non-infected people)
3)Therefore the RNA must come from a virus.
4)We have not seen the virus or isolated it, but we’ll call it covid19.
That is about the most stupid pseudo-science I have ever encountered. They cannot find a virus using the standard method so they infer one using circular logic that makes no scientific sense.
The logic was wrong for HIV where that viral loading technique originated. Kary Mullis who invented the PCR method and won a Nobel for his efforts got angry when asked about the viral loading technique. He claimed PCR cannot detect a virus. Mullis did HIV-related work, he knew about viruses.
The number of deaths reported in the US jumped dramatically over a two week period from 500 to nearly 50,000. That is total bs. Fauci, of the US NIAID (infectious control) put his foot in his mouth by claiming there could be over 200,000 deaths related to covid in the US. Trump bit and began braying about that possibility. Now they are in damage control, trying to artificially elevate the number of deaths so they won’t look absolutely stupid.
Trump has realized his error and he is pushing to get the US economy going again. He is being opposed by the likes of Fauci at NIAID and the US Center for Disease Control, who want to control the transition. I say, kick their sorry butts out the door and get on with it. Let the human immune system do what it does best.
It was the same in the UK. They were following the Swedish model of using scientific analysis and watching the contagion on a daily basis to see where it would go. Then some bean-counting idiots at the Royal Society put out a ludicrous projection of 500,000 deaths based on a computer model. The UK immediately changed course and started locking the country down. They panicked.
In the US, the head of the coroner’s association in Philadelphia is upset because they don’t have a body count that matches the inflated death statistics. In Minnesota, a doctor complained that the State is putting pressure on him to increase the number of covid-related deaths. They have urged him to report any death as covid-related even if the deceased does not test positive but he had been in contact with a family member or friend who had tested positive.
As one scientist put it, the pandemic is not about covid, it’s about the hysteria and panic in the human mind.
Gordon Robertson
Please just stop with your continuous lies, misleading information and dishonesty. The contrarians are not heroes. They are not good people at all. They are like you, bad people. Liars, dishonest and deceitful. You praise horrible people (like yourself). You love the lies and hate truth. Your whole post is a bunch of distorted lies and deception. Purposefully trying to mislead people. You have a deep problem that no one can fix. Seems like most people here know you are a dishonest liar yet you pretend no one has pointed out your many lies. Like the contrarians you praise. They lie and distort and people prove them wrong but they ignore the truth and continue to lie. Just like you. Super dishonest and for what? What does your constant lies get you. Not respect.
Norman – have pity on him. It is the medications we give him that induces such paranoia.
nurse crotchrot…It seems you’ve had one too many covid innoculations. Your lung infections has spread to what’s left of your brain.
Still dressing in drag?
Oooh Gordon!
Are you interested in a date?
I can dress up however you like !
norman…”The contrarians are not heroes. They are not good people at all”.
I suppose you call this guy who represents your side a good person? If you do, then I can begin to understand your dementia.
Watch the part where they throw a female scientist in jail for absolutely nothing, and keep her there. That’s your type, the type who ruined the career and life of Peter Duesberg for telling the truth about HIV.
Did I mention that you’re a freakin’ idiot?
From Stephen above:
https://canadafreepress.com/article/dr.-anthony-faucis-ex-employee-was-jailed-finally-tells-all
Gordon Robertson
You don’t even look into things when you make a lying false post. The female scientist you are referring to was put in jail for stealing items. Read up on it.
Peter Duesberg is an evil human with a cold heart. His false ideas on HIV caused the deaths of several people that could have been helped. He is a false prophet from the house of lies.
I am no idiot. I like Truth. You hate it so you have nothing else but your lies, dishonesty and attempting to throw mud.
You see everyone in the World as dishonest but you and a handful of lying dishonest contrarians who you blindly believe. The point is you are projecting your own dishonest mind unto everything and then you are not able to see that you are the lying dishonest one not the rest of the scientific world. Your own dishonest lying mind can’t see itself but sees everyone as it really is (which they are not)
You think scientists are intentionally “fudging” temperature data and yet you have not read one article on what they are doing and why and then proposing valid skeptical arguments against some of their choices. No all you do is make the false lying claim they are intentionally “fudging” data to create warming that does not exist in reality. Now you say that authorities are “fudging” deaths in Covid cases. You have zero proof of this allegation. You have done no study to prove such claim. You just assume everyone (buy you and a handful of lying contrarians) is a dishonest liar like you are so you can’t believe anything and you do this all with no evidence or proof. That is a pathetic mind. Full of lies and dishonesty but can not ever examine itself to see if it is the source of all the lies and “fudging” it sees.
norman…”Peter Duesberg is an evil human with a cold heart. His false ideas on HIV caused the deaths of several people that could have been helped. He is a false prophet from the house of lies.
I am no idiot. I like Truth”.
No, Norman, you have an image in your mind that you like the truth but you are suffering from the same problem as most who rely on mental imagery, you are fooling yourselg.
You ad hom and insult Peter Duesberg without supplying a shred of evidence as to why he is evil. Read his writings and tell why he is evil?
https://www.duesberg.com/
Everything he has written on his site has been proved to be true. Obviously, you are clinging to the old propaganda spread by people like Fauci of NIAID. Fauci is still at it and there are now links to him and the lab in Wuhan, China where they were working on covid.
And why are you talking about panic and fear, gbakie? This doesn’t get us closer to the truth.
Where do you go to get a solid medical understanding of the issue, gbakie?
This is what happens when you read blogs and ‘experts’ that couldn’t get their opinions published in any journal. Robertson seems to believe that an opinion must be right if its anti-establishment.
“As one scientist put it, the pandemic is not about covid, its about the hysteria and panic in the human mind.”
So, a pandemic of hysteria and panic in the human mind?
Is there any country which has escape this pandemic of hysteria and panic in the human mind?
While we topic of nullifying viruses, I heard recently the idea that “common seasonal flu” has inflated numbers in terms deaths per year.
So, is the number given for common seasonal flu, somewhat accurate OR is that also a scam?
Anyhow, it seems people are increasingly imagining that Vitamin D is somewhat important in regards the no china virus.
gbaikie…”While we topic of nullifying viruses, I heard recently the idea that common seasonal flu has inflated numbers in terms deaths per year”.
The numbers are all estimates. No one knows for sure if most people die from the flu or from underlying conditions. That applies equally to the current contagion. No on knows the accuracy of the infections or the deaths claimed espeacially when pressure is being applied to US medical people to list deaths as covid-related.
Well I made long post, but it didn’t post. I will keep it short.
We are going to leave this lockdown stuff pretty quick.
The most extreme action of “leave this lockdown stuff” is returning to international air travel.
And I say roughly this will happen in 3 months. If we were much smarter, it could happen within 1 month.
But I would say that I am being optimistic about how smart we might be, when I say within 3 months.
But what I am interested in, is when do you think we start returning to normal in terms of international air travel.
And more interesting which country do you imagine, starts international air travel, first?
“While we topic of nullifying viruses,”
Who is talking about that? The objective is to “flatten the curve.”
A lot of people seem to be missing the point of lockdowns and social distancing.
“Who is talking about that? The objective is to “flatten the curve.”
No, it’s: “Who is talking about that? The objective was to “flatten the curve.”
The flattening the curve is done, already, and it’s done globally.
Though obviously the virus still exist, and we no clue when could stop existing. And no clue if any vaccine will work or how well it works if it works at all.
The only question at this point, is what is best way to go, after the curve has been flattened.
In the beginning the virus was a low risk of death. And even a low risk of death to the population which has highest risk of death- which was over 65.
But in terms of risk of serious illness which doesn’t result in death, that was why you needed a lockdown.
Or since this started, mid Jan 2020 {or earlier} we needed isolation of 65 or older and we still need “social distancing” of 65 or older, but total isolation in some regions for over 65 shouldn’t be a government type order, but rather a government “advise”. Monitoring such population should/could be a strict government order.
The thing we call “lockdown” was for the purpose of flattening the curve, and as I said, “globally” this already happened.
So to be clear, all population should be doing “social distancing” in regard to 65 or older and close monitoring of this population.
So India should end their lockdown and put a lot more governmental attention upon it’s 65 + population. Same goes for Africa- probably as wild guess lots deficiency in some African countries in this regard. But globally there also deficency in that regard, which is “proven” by the high deaths per million.
When leaving lock down, one of course should continue varying degrees of social distancing. And of course people infected, should not be in workplaces or crowded areas, includes anyone volunteering the possibility they might be infected with China virus. Don’t need a test that indicates this is the case. Should be “allowed” to self isolate. And this also extends to people worried about catching the virus. But such opinion or excuse [rather evidence} could change within say 1 month or less after ending the lockdown. But at any time, in future {say a few years} anyone should be able to get a test, and if results indicate they have virus- it extend another 2 weeks from when test was taken, that should go to work, etc.
And why are you talking about panic and fear, gbakie? This doesn’t get us closer to the truth.
Where do you go to get a solid medical understanding of the issue, gbakie?
Speaking of panic and fear, this makes me a bit worried:
Why have 14,000 people volunteered to be infected with coronavirus?
“They want to take part in a “human challenge trial,” an ethically controversial vaccine test that infects people with a virus doesn’t yet have a cure.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/why-have-14-000-people-volunteered-be-infected-coronavirus-n1203931
“They dont have the slightest shred of scientific evidence to back that claim. ”
But Gordon that meets your usual standards for believing a claim.
nate…”They dont have the slightest shred of scientific evidence to back that claim.
But Gordon that meets your usual standards for believing a claim”.
For one, I have stopped believing anything. For another, what is wrong with holding theories and propaganda to a scientific standard?
When epidemiologist, Johan Geiseke, an advisor to the WHO, was asked his opinion on social distancing he replied immediately that no scientific evidence exists to support the theory.
That’s not what he said.
As usual your regular net surfing has led you to the maverick voice, and that’s the one you think is right. Doesn’t matter what the vast majority of experts think, you just like mavericks – but only ones that suit your own opinions.
But you can’t even get the maverick opinion right, you still have to distort what they say til its what you think and not what they think, just the same way you do with the NOAA advisory about the number of stations.
This is demented, Robertson.
Geiseke clearly thinks that social distancing and lockdowns prevent the spread of the disease – for that matter, this is true of most diseases, and is frankly bloody obvious. His opinion is that, except for aged care facilities, social distancing and lockdown merely suspend the inevitable and are mostly a waste of time.
It’s not hard to get that right.
My opinion – social distancing and lockdown were always designed to flatten the curve, and give time to prepare the health system for a potential explosion of cases, as we’ve seen in several countries around the world. No one seriously expected the disease to be eradicated enitrely, just managed.
So I think Geiseke’s argument is a straw man from the outset. Medically sound, but missing the point.
“The number of deaths reported in the US jumped dramatically over a two week period from 500 to nearly 50,000. That is total bs.”
That actually occurred Mar 22 to Apr 23, a month.
Anyway, the BS of that seems to be just a feeling. Maybe its just gas?
I can’t stop repeating it:
All these Pseudoskeptics – not only Robertson of course, but all those who silently or visibly agree to his stupid, disgusting trash – should be sentenced by a court to a six-week forced social stay in a hospital, e.g. in New York, in Rio de Janeiro, Manaus or the like.
You all understand: I mean one of these hospitals so full of patients that the doctors don’t know whom to help in surviving.
The best job for him there would be to make protective clothing of doctors and nurses clean!
But of course: without masks and protective clothing! Because… they tell us it’s not necessary.
J.-P. D.
binny….”should be sentenced by a court to a six-week forced social stay in a hospital, e.g. in New York, in Rio de Janeiro, Manaus or the like.
You all understand: I mean one of these hospitals so full of patients that the doctors don’t know whom to help in surviving”.
All of those people account for about 1/1000nds of 1% of populations. The problem is not the contagion its how utterly unprepared we have been for medical emergencies. We are too cheap to spend money on essentials, rather, we allow people like Bill Gates to amass billions of dollars then turn on us, telling us how stupid we are.
Italy was the model for the hysteria and panic and it turns out many factors were missed due to the rush to panic. For one, the same devastation struck Italy in the 2016/17 flu season, where 25,000 people died across Italy. The difference this time it the contagion struck in a small northern area of Italy. In my region of Canada we’ve had about 120 deaths, most in senior’s care facilities.
Furthermore, the city of Milan, in the middle of the current contagion, was declared the most polluted city in Europe in 2008. The same is true for Wuhan, China where the pollution is much greater. Therefore people are bound to have respiratory issues. Furthermore, Italy has some of the oldest population in the world.
Robertson
Again, your stupid and ignorant trash.
I confirm my comment above.
The way the UAH chart is drawn even the 13 month average which is on the zero line at the start of the chart still got crossed at 2012, that’s 32 years into the set and only 8 years back,
In a little while it will cross it again , just wait and remember you heard it from me first
I predict that the red line will continue to go up and down. I expect a medal once this is shown to be the case.
I don’t know how long it will take for ignorants to understand the difference between
– the same zero anomaly level on a chart for e.g. 1980 and 2012
and
– the temperature increase between the two years: 0.11 C / decade.
How is it possible to keep so incredibly uneducated when posting during years on such a blog?
binny…”I dont know how long it will take for ignorants to understand the difference between
the same zero anomaly level on a chart for e.g. 1980 and 2012
and
the temperature increase between the two years: 0.11 C / decade.”
There is not much of a relationship between the two. The absolute temperature increase requires absolute temperatures and we seldom get to see those. Instead, we are inundated with a over-exaggerated and condensed anomaly view that fits within 1C.
Anomalies are misleading since they are based on unnatural averages created by the human mind. They are also open to fudging as NOAA has shown by creating a trend from 1998 – 2012 that the IPCC failed to find in the papers it reviewed.
I mean, how is the baseline range determined? It’s an arbitrary value related to the scientist creating it. Also, the practice of adjusting anomalies to seasonal averages is questionable.
There is no way to find an accurate global average and even if we could, what does a 15C average mean in winter to people suffering through temps of -30C? We simply don’t have the coverage with land and ocean surface thermometers. Even with the sats, they average temperatures over altitude depths due to the nature of the telemetry. However, we know a lot about temperatures at altitudes and what to expect so in the capacity, the sat data is much more accurate.
Robertson
1. ” The absolute temperature increase requires absolute temperatures and we seldom get to see those. Instead, we are inundated with a over-exaggerated and condensed anomaly view that fits within 1C. ”
Usual nonsense written by somebody whose real knowledge is inversely proportional to the size of his redundant and wrong posts.
UAH6.0 LT anomalies wrt mean of 1981-2020 for
– Sep 1980: -0.01 C
– Nov 2011: -0.01 C
Trend for this period, using the anomaly time series:
0.11 C / decade
UAH6.0 LT, reconstructed absolute values for
– Sep 1980: -8.69 C
– Nov 2011: -9.89 C
Trend for the same period, using the absolute time series:
0.15 C / decade
*
2. ” They are also open to fudging as NOAA has shown by creating a trend from 1998 2012… ”
NOAA trends
– for Jan 1998 – Dec 2012: 0.08 C / decade
– for Jan 1999 – Dec 2012: 0.12 C / decade
– for Jan 1979 – Dec 2019: 0.17 C / decade
*
3. ” However, we know a lot about temperatures at altitudes and what to expect so in the capacity, the sat data is much more accurate. ”
Wrong.
You don’t mean “sat data”. You mean “UAH data”.
Because you believe that RSS data is ‘fudged’.
*
Ignorants better keep silent, Robertson. It saves blog space.
Hmmmm, I think I can personally detect warming having lived within a 50 mile radius since my earliest memories. I remember reading about major crop freezes in my youth on a regular basis. Today we are so lucky that such stuff is very rare.
Robertson
I forgot this:
” Also, the practice of adjusting anomalies to seasonal averages is questionable. ”
You pretended many times to be an admirator of Roy Spencer.
Try to prove this, by learning what he told us years ago about anomaly-based time series in which the annual cycle is removed.
barry…”Youre going to have to do some selective editing, because the woman clearly believes HIV and AIDS are part and parcel. So your expert witness here will have terribly flawed judgement on the issue shes trained in according to your own beliefs, but miraculousy keen insight when it comes to padding out other bits of your opinion”.
She would not have gotten a job working for Fauci had she not believed that nonsense about HIV/AIDS. I am not interested in that part of her revelations it is in her view as an immunologist that we are attacking the current contagion incorrectly.
She was also right about Fauci albeit in the wrong context. Nobelist Kary Mullis did not refer to Fauci as an ****ole for nothing. Mullis did not tolerate fools and he became angered at the way Fauci promoted the HIV/AIDS theory with no scientific proof to back his claims.
For at least the first ten years after HIV was declared as the cause of AIDS (no peer review) circa 1983 HIV was referred to as the virus BELIEVED to cause AIDS. The reason was simple, there was no scientific proof that it did. The theory was anointed under tremendous lobbying from the homosexual community who were demanding an answer.
There has to be a reason why Fauci and Gallo have stubbornly clung to the THEORY that HIV causes AIDS while the scientist who was first to reveal the virus, Luc Montagnier, has long since changed his mind. He now claims HIV is harmless to a healthy immune system and the data over the past 40 years proves that clearly.
I think this lady revealed in her video that Gallo and Fauci have profited from patents related to this theory. Mind you, Montagnier received half of Gallo’s patent profits on HIV tests after the French government protested to the US government that Gallo had stolen intellectual material from Montagnier. They apparently settled out of court with Montagnier receiving half the profits.
Montagnier never did claim that HIV alone could cause AIDS, he thought a co-factor was required. It took him over 30 years to find the co-factor, life style. That’s a shame because the expert despised by Norman, Peter Duesberg, claimed that in the beginning.
What Norman is missing is that Duesberg is a brilliant scientist who was the youngest member at the time ever inducted into the National Academy of Science. This is a case like that of Barry Marshall, the Australian who discovered that stomach ulcers are caused by a bacteria. It’s a case where one person is right and the rest are wrong.
Mullis had mulled over the idea of finding a paper that proved how HIV caused AIDS but it was not till he was driving one night and heard Duesberg talking about HIV on the car radio that he was motivated to find that paper. He searched for 10 years, including a talk with Luc Montagnier, and could find none. Montagnier knew of no such paper.
The lady in the video, an immunologist, is calling for an examination of the state of corruption in medical science. However, she has a steep, uphill battle. The mainstream press, butt-kissers to the medical establishment, are all over her already, cherry picking her words and focusing on trivia to discredit her.
For example, they have zeroed in on a study she did circa 2008 that was apparently refuted. They mention nothing of Gallo’s abject failure trying to prove cancer is caused by a virus. Following that failure, with Gallo appearing as an absolute fool, the Reagan administration were looking for a cause of AIDS. There was Gallo, front and centre, with a very convenient viral theory.
His viral theory was accepted without question and without peer review. Why don’t the mainstream press zero in on that?
“She would not have gotten a job working for Fauci had she not believed that nonsense about HIV/AIDS. I am not interested in that part of her revelations it is in her view as an immunologist that we are attacking the current contagion incorrectly.”
But this is your dilemma that you don’t seem to be interested in confonting.
How can she give sound medical advice if she, who was in the lab in the thick of the HIV/AIDS research, got that issue completely wrong (according to you).
And she believes that “nonsense” all right – she could have disavowed it in the vid, years after parting company from Fauci, instead of confirming the mainstream view.
Nope, you just pick and choose without a shred of skeptical enquiry, any hearsay that satisfies your worldview.
Meanwhile, Nate did some research and it seems she’s full of shit.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-470264
What research did you do to critically assess the veracity of her story? Not someone else’s story – her story.
We both know you swallowed what she said hook line and sinker, and have done no scrutiny, nor will perform no scrutiny on her version of events.
Wrong link to Nate – check out what she’s claimed and what is real, Robertson.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2020-0-38-deg-c/#comment-470068
norman…from Duesberg’s site…
“He [Duesberg] isolated the first cancer gene through his work on retroviruses in 1970, and mapped the genetic structure of these viruses. This, and his subsequent work in the same field, resulted in his election to the National Academy of Sciences in 1986. He is also the recipient of a seven-year Outstanding Investigator Grant from the National Institutes of Health”.
The blurb has omitted that Duesberg was the youngest member in 1986 ever inducted into NAS. Also, that he was the recipient of the California Scientist of the Year Award.
If you were not so narrow minded, you’d research Duesberg and learn what an insightful, humanistic man he is. There is nothing evil about Peter Duesberg.
The real evil exists with people who pump healthy people who have tested positive for HIV with lethal, toxic antiviral drugs. The drug manufacturers not only claim the drugs cannot cure HIV, they admit they are severely toxic and that they can cause IRS, essentially AIDS caused by drugs. The drugs are known to cause a serious blood disorder and liver/kidney failure, often leading to death.
You are targeting the wrong man. Duesberg felt aghast when he learned AZT was being used to treat HIV. AZT is so toxic, it was discontinued as a cancer chemotherapy treatment. The newer HAART antivirals are little better.
You should be going after Fauci, a man I consider as being truly evil.
Gordon Robertson
Peter Duesberg is a lying scoundrel that is responsible for causing the death of many people. A reporter revealed how he was a liar and deliberately distorting the Truth. The reporter was sued for defamation but the case did not stick as he had good research to back up his claims.
https://www.courthousenews.com/aids-denialist-reporter-loses-defamation-claim/
” In an email to the one of the organizations coordinators, Treatment Action Group coordinator Richard Jeffreys wrote that Farber and Duesberg are not whistleblowers, they are simply liars who for many years have used fraud to argue for Duesbergs long-discredited theory that drug use and malnutrition not HIV cause AIDS.
Gordon Robertson
More:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3015095/
And then finally people who had HIV test positive but where part of the HIV causes AIDS denial group, here is some eye opening cases. You can reject them but Peter Duesberg is a bad person, a liar and deceiver. He may have done some good research at some time but now he likes the power and support of being praised for allegedly standing against the “Powers that Be”. I like that Spirit when it is honest and truthful. When it lies and is deceitful it is not something to be praised and should not be supported.
When Duesberg first questioned the HIV connection to AIDS that is useful. It promotes good solid research. When he ignores mountains of evidence and then promotes his ideas in Africa leading to many deaths he is a bad person at that point. Nothing to admire at all.
https://www.poz.com/article/Don-8217-t-Buy-The-HIV-Lie-10455-7458
‘You should be going after Fauci, a man I consider as being truly evil.’
Perfect illustration of our polarized politics.
When people disagree with you on politics or whatever, they are not just wrong.
They do not just just have a different opinion. No, thats not enough.
They must also be EVIL.
Is it evil to push hard fund research into treatments for horrible diseases like AIDS?
Is it evil to correct the president on science?
If so, then evil must have been redefined.
Nate says: – Is it evil to correct the president on science?
—————-
Except that nobody I am aware of correcting the President on science. In fact, I haven’t even heard the President offer anything even remotely like science. The President is by and large the skeptic-in-chief. Those who lose their skepticism aren’t scientists they are true believers.
Evil is claiming somebody did when they didn’t.
Again, evil gets redefined to suit your agenda
the lack of defense of your claim is telling.
The president says many many dumb, false things related to science, and other things. Lately related to health and medicine.
Often these need to be corrected.
You appear to be unaware of current events. Maybe go read a newspaper.
What I have seen is medical experts providing additional details, which is typical in a press conference and the reason why Chiefs pass the microphone during press conferences.
Apparently for all you true believer extrapolators out there thats just to tough to handle.
Gordon,
From wikipedia:
“Judy Anne Mikovits (c. 1958) is a discredited American ex-research scientist[2][3][10][11][12] who is known for her anti-vaccination activism,[12][13] promotion of conspiracy theories, and scientific misconduct.[6][7][8][9].”
Look at all the references. Someone/s has done some research.
Sciencemag has also taken an interest in her, with tons of references.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/fact-checking-judy-mikovits-controversial-virologist-attacking-anthony-fauci-viral
“…Two months later, the entire Science paper was retracted. Mikovits refused to sign the retraction notice, but she took part in another major replication effort. That $2.3 million study, led by Ian Lipkin of Columbia University and funded by the National Institutes of Health, was “the definitive answer,” Mikovits said at a September 2012 press conference where the results were announced. The rigorous study looked for XMRV in blinded blood samples from nearly 300 people, half of whom had the disease, and none had the virus. “There is no evidence that XMRV is a human pathogen,” Mikovits conceded….
Mikovits has not published anything in the scientific literature since 2012. But she soon began to promote the XMRV hypothesis again, and attack the Lipkin study that she agreed had put the issue to rest. She has weighed in on the autism debate with controversial theories about causes and treatments. Her discredited work and her legal travails have made her a martyr in the eyes of some.”
So I’ve got a new theory about you, Gordon, a nicer one.
You are a sympathetic guy who takes in lonely opinions like stray dogs. You give them a home and lots of love, and take them on long walks down Blog Street. In a world that is cruel to loners and mavericks, you are their defender and champion.
The alarmists keep calculating the temperature to a hundreds of a degree over the last few years as some kind of proof there is something wrong with the climate. When in the history was it the temperature was always the same and not going up or down ???
When looking at historical climate record it is totally obvious the temperature is constantly swinging up and down like a Jojo, of course you have to look at the real data not the highly smoothed out averaged charts the climate shysters put out for common lowest denominators. It always went up just before it turned down and always went down before it turned up , except until now when few rainmakers placed on the pedestal by politicians decided it will go only up and up into eternity unless you pay them millions dollars.
The temperature rise of the past 50 or so years have its underlying causes laid down since 100 years before that because of the slow ocean overturning and Sun activity cycles and things like that.
The climate wannabees who keep drawing straight line trends and projecting them in to the future as some kind of climate forecasting will almost always be wrong other than by some other unrelated coincidence.
They will never identify the underlying causes of the upcoming flip over change, and they will never foresee the turning point.
Climate has always changed. Interannual variability in global temperature has always been there.
No problem, right? You think ‘alarmists’ deny these things?
These things can be true at the same time as acknowledging that the globe has been warming for the last 100 years or so, and that the primary cause since the mid 20th century is anthropogenic emissions of CO2, according to the best scientific understanding.
Please no more straw men.
barry says:
These things can be true at the same time as acknowledging that the globe has been warming for the last 100 years or so, and that the primary cause since the mid 20th century is anthropogenic emissions of CO2, according to the best scientific understanding.
———————–
Nothing at all scientific about that statement Barry.
Define: “best”; quantify: “primary cause”. Those words have wide ranges of meaning. I tend to think even most skeptics acknowledge the warming that has been quantified to contain various amounts of “UHI”, “UHI sampling pollution”, “UHI estimation error”, “land use change”, “land use change measurement error”, “irrigation projects”, “irrigation project estimation error”, “weather station sampling error”, “weather station adjustment error”, “weather station measuring inconsistency”, “weather station instrumentation change error”, “weather station instrumentation change estimation error”,”weatheer station relocation error”, “compilation errors”, “compilation bias errors”, “compilation bias errors”, “interpolation error”, “kriging error”. I have probably only scratched the surface of sources of error above in trying to put together a list of potential error and how such errors can be increased through combinations of various types of error.
Its especially tough when no transparent and enforced professional standards exist and when most efforts to test the results are performed by those who have openly expressed support for the original findings or are conflicted through receiving funding from the same sources as the original work with no direct liability exposure.
https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/other/point-estimators/
bill hunter
” I tend to think even most skeptics acknowledge the warming that has been quantified to contain various amounts of… ”
Instead of presenting a link to rather trivial things known since decades, what about links pointing to documents containing real analysis, based on mathematical proofs of these ‘various amounts’ ?
Feel free to show some of them.
And PLEASE: nothing coming from the usual corners Heller aka Goddard, hockeyschtick, Gosselin’s Trickszone etc etc.
J.-P. D.
How about you retards go make your demented circular arguments into somebody else’s thread
Bindidon says: Instead of presenting a link to rather trivial things known since decades, what about links pointing to documents containing real analysis, based on mathematical proofs of these various amounts ?
Feel free to show some of them.
And PLEASE: nothing coming from the usual corners Heller aka Goddard, hockeyschtick, Gosselins Trickszone etc etc.
————————
Well you may not be aware that your entire opinion is based on the fallacy of appealing to authority. . . .and cherry picked authority at that.
Then you want me to do your job for you.
LMAO!!
bill hunter
Rather than laughing your ass off it would seem Bindidon is more in tune with the science than you. You sound like you get your “science” from blogs.
Here is one article on the actual work they do to try and look at the various errors and correct for them. I am sure you could read some real studies on the topic if you were interested then come back with good valid complaints based upon flaws you have found in the research material.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2009JD013094
Getting support from someone like Eben who posts Flat-Earth nonsense videos on this blog would not be someone I would have supporting me. Eben is not a bright person and he seems to have very little actual science education. He is a mindless contrarian like Gordon Robertson. They blindly believe any contrarian opinion and do not have enough real science training to see the many flaws in the views. Eben is probably less intelligent than Robertson as I have not seen Robertson post video links to Flat-Earth material.
Norman says:
Rather than laughing your ass off it would seem Bindidon is more in tune with the science than you. You sound like you get your science from blogs.
——————–
Thats a laugher too. Bindidon and you seem to think that being in tune with science is listening to science pundits like a teenager swooning over a young movie star.
I am a little more practical in understanding that without enforced professional standards any expert is going to say exactly what he believes will be most advantageous to his personal needs. And just like religion he will then do his best to sell it as the personal needs of everybody else.
And just like just about anybody who expresses what they feel will be most advantageous to themselves often think about the things they probably should avoid saying.
Norman says:
Here is one article on the actual work they do to try and look at the various errors and correct for them. I am sure you could read some real studies on the topic if you were interested then come back with good valid complaints based upon flaws you have found in the research material.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2009JD013094
——————————
Nothing surprising about that. Sometimes with sufficient effort you can convince others to believe what you believe. Of course be aware of the single payer system with major institutions the largest recipients watching the gates of science to an extent they will go after your job, block your publications, slander you, fire you, and use your head on a stake as a warning against others daring to venture down the same course.
Blogs? LMAO! The more you go after them the more money they make. Being on the hit list is a matter of pride. Such is the nature of politics, not science.
Norman says:
Getting support from someone like Eben who posts Flat-Earth nonsense videos on this blog would not be someone I would have supporting me.
———————–
Sure thing. You just love those folks that call up journal editors and threaten them from never seeing another publication from a major institution if the ever publish somebody again. Right?
Norman says:
Eben is not a bright person and he seems to have very little actual science education. He is a mindless contrarian like Gordon Robertson. They blindly believe any contrarian opinion and do not have enough real science training to see the many flaws in the views. Eben is probably less intelligent than Robertson as I have not seen Robertson post video links to Flat-Earth material.
————————-
And you say that with absolutely no proof for your position and while simultaneously not putting up a shred of a scientific argument that Eben is incorrect. I guess its either because you don’t know squat or it could be because Eben is right?
bill hunter
Do you actually work in a scientific research field where you can validate your accusations on how science works? Or are you just making up this material based upon someone else’s opinion or a few contrarians that win support or common people who have no science background but pretend to be experts because they read material from a few scientists that are upset and can write anything they want?
ON EBEN YOU SAY: “And you say that with absolutely no proof for your position and while simultaneously not putting up a shred of a scientific argument that Eben is incorrect. I guess its either because you dont know squat or it could be because Eben is right?”
Okay if you are a Flat-Earther I guess a rational conversation on science will not be possible with you. Then I guess you are just another false contrarian peddling nonsense on a blog because you have a religious objective in generating converts to the religion (one based upon lies, deception and distortion of facts).
Norman says:
May 11, 2020 at 4:30 AM
bill hunter
Do you actually work in a scientific research field where you can validate your accusations on how science works? Or are you just making up this material based upon someone elses opinion or a few contrarians that win support or common people who have no science background but pretend to be experts because they read material from a few scientists that are upset and can write anything they want?
ON EBEN YOU SAY: And you say that with absolutely no proof for your position and while simultaneously not putting up a shred of a scientific argument that Eben is incorrect. I guess its either because you dont know squat or it could be because Eben is right?
Okay if you are a Flat-Earther I guess a rational conversation on science will not be possible with you. Then I guess you are just another false contrarian peddling nonsense on a blog because you have a religious objective in generating converts to the religion (one based upon lies, deception and distortion of facts).
Its rather revealing Norman that your idea of a science debate is to handwave scientists away as being ‘upset’. ‘flat earther’. ‘rational conversation’, ‘false contrarian peddling nonsense’, ‘religious objective’, ‘lies’, ‘deception’, ‘distortion’.
Where is your science argument that takes down what anybody you place in those categories?
bill hunter
It seems you intentionally avoided by question to you. I will ask again.
MY QUESTION TO YOU: Do you actually work in a scientific research field where you can validate your accusations on how science works
YOU: “Where is your science argument that takes down what anybody you place in those categories?”
I already gave you one. You seem to have rejected it with a contrarian religious point: “Thats a laugher too. Bindidon and you seem to think that being in tune with science is listening to science pundits like a teenager swooning over a young movie star.
I am a little more practical in understanding that without enforced professional standards any expert is going to say exactly what he believes will be most advantageous to his personal needs. And just like religion he will then do his best to sell it as the personal needs of everybody else.”
Basically you are peddling the religion of lies based upon the false and misleading arguments of contrarians. There is not possible discussion with you unless you become open minded and consider the very real possibility that most scientists are still honest researchers that are working hard to find the Truth. There are a few bad apples as with all fields. Most bad apples are the contrarians you believe preach Gospel Truth and are honest but the vast majority of research scientists are peddling lies for a paycheck. I have no clue what you do for a living, I am most certain it has nothing to do with any science field or research group. You don’t even appear scientifically literate. Your arguments are not even your original ideas. I can read most those on contrarian blogs. The peddle the notion that established science is false and they (the few) are the only ones with the Truth. Science illiterates like you eat the message with vigor. It makes you feel smart when you are not able to read a science textbook (above you intelligence level). You are in the cult of “US against the WORLD” and get a sense of superiority that the highly intelligent research scientists are phony so you don’t need to learn their brand of science, just listen to a few contrarians and you are set. Weird how you guys justify your lack of science knowledge and pretend to know what you are talking about. Nothing I can do will convince you. And you, with zero supporting evidence for you claims, will never convince me. If you want to convince me, gather good solid evidence that research scientists, in mass, are producing false and untrue data to support a paycheck. Until you do this you will gain no credibility with scientist. You can convince like minded contrarians like yourself (Eben and Gordon Robertson) that you are credible. It seems you guys support your unsupported propaganda when you have like minded people agreeing with you.
I await and answer to my initial question. Please respond. Thank you.
Eben
” How about you retards go make your demented circular arguments into somebody elses thread ”
What about YOU, simple-minded flat-earthist and totally uneducated climate denialist leaving yourself this thread, thus making place for more intelligent people?
J.-P. D.
Norman says:
MY QUESTION TO YOU: Do you actually work?
————————-
yes
Norman says:
Basically you are peddling the religion of lies based upon the false and misleading arguments of contrarians. There is not possible discussion with you unless you become open minded and consider the very real possibility that most scientists are still honest researchers that are working hard to find the Truth.
—————————–
I have no idea where you got all that. I don’t think scientists lie anymore than anybody else. Perhaps you are too young, too naive, and too stupid and believe they are Saints.
Norman says:
There are a few bad apples as with all fields. Most bad apples are the contrarians you believe preach Gospel Truth and are honest but the vast majority of research scientists are peddling lies for a paycheck.
——————
that paragraph doesn’t make any sense.
Norman says:
I have no clue what you do for a living, I am most certain it has nothing to do with any science field or research group. You don’t even appear scientifically literate. Your arguments are not even your original ideas. I can read most those on contrarian blogs.
————————-
Most of what are on true skeptic blogs are correct. Skeptics don’t go around peddling suspicions as facts.
Norman says:
The peddle the notion that established science is false and they (the few) are the only ones with the Truth. Science illiterates like you eat the message with vigor. It makes you feel smart when you are not able to read a science textbook (above you intelligence level). You are in the cult of “US against the WORLD” and get a sense of superiority that the highly intelligent research scientists are phony so you don’t need to learn their brand of science, just listen to a few contrarians and you are set. Weird how you guys justify your lack of science knowledge and pretend to know what you are talking about.
—————–
pure bullshit
Norman says:
Nothing I can do will convince you.
————————–
no you will never convince me as long as all you do is babble.
Norman says:
And you, with zero supporting evidence for you claims, will never convince me. If you want to convince me, gather good solid evidence that research scientists, in mass, are producing false and untrue data to support a paycheck. Until you do this you will gain no credibility with scientist. You can convince like minded contrarians like yourself (Eben and Gordon Robertson) that you are credible. It seems you guys support your unsupported propaganda when you have like minded people agreeing with you.
—————————
I am not trying to convince you that scientists are producing false and untrue data. I am only saying that their data is not convincing. All that does is provide more evidence that you are
too young, too naive, and too stupid because you are completely convinced by it.
bill hunter
YOU: “I am not trying to convince you that scientists are producing false and untrue data. I am only saying that their data is not convincing. All that does is provide more evidence that you are
too young, too naive, and too stupid because you are completely convinced by it.”
Okay what part of the evidence or data do you believe is not convincing to you? You make claims but you support none of them. Then you call me stupid or naïve. Not completely convinced by anything but your accusations come with no supporting evidence. You read some contrarian blogs where they intentionally distort information and you come here with nothing to support what you allege.
Can you at least attempt to provide some proof that the data is not convincing? What data do you reject? Maybe link to a science article on the topic you disagree (maybe surface temperature record) then point out flaws in the study in a logical systematic way. Now you are a valid skeptic. Just saying the data is not convincing does not make you very smart. It is an overly simplified statement with zero supporting evidence. Kind of a meaningless message. Do you believe the world is flat?
Norman says: – ,Can you at least attempt to provide some proof that the data is not convincing? What data do you reject? Maybe link to a science article on the topic you disagree (maybe surface temperature record) then point out flaws in the study in a logical systematic way. Now you are a valid skeptic. Just saying the data is not convincing does not make you very smart. It is an overly simplified statement with zero supporting evidence. Kind of a meaningless message. Do you believe the world is flat? ‘
Actually thats pretty easy. Should be for you too if you had any experience in matters like this.
I have strongly held this view since almost the first day I began research in this area because it was patently obvious to me and my professional experience. My reply to bdgwx above is in the same vein and I will give you the same reference.
https://judithcurry.com/2013/09/20/co2-control-knob-fallacy/
Its well understood by proponents of the theory that the authorities bestow rich rewards upon those who aid the political agenda who suucceed even partly in squelching doubt by altering history. Gores Hockey Stick exemplifies it and all those who have tried to find ways to make historic climate variation disappear. But you can’t make a fossil record disappear and in the natural sciences I am involved with the fossil record corresponds to natural climate variations on multi-decadal and longer time scales.
I am concerned about the lack of explanations for such events as the Younger Dryas, 8.2k event, LIA, and more recent multi-decadal warming periods seen in the early 18th century and early 20th century.
The hope to disappear all that and thus cool skepticism is more political than honest scientific inquiry. the whole purpose of which is to advance a very narrow viewpoint of climate change.
Globe has been warming for the last 100 years.
Primary cause is increased solar activity following mini ice age. The temperature can do nothing but go up as the ice melts.
How does declining solar activity after 1960 cause the Earth energy imbalance to increase to +0.6 W/m^2 despite an increase in aerosols that produce a negative radiative force?
The top expert in that Dr. Richard Lindzen states that the net radiative forcing effect of aerosols is unknown.
What do other top experts think?
How does that make declining solar activity a warming force?
it doesnt make declining solar activity a warming force bdgwx.
what is needed is some smarts and experience with really big systems to understand why.
A recovery from the LIA requires and understanding of the behavior of large systems.
Let me give you an example. Lets hypothesize that a change in solar output in 1700 produced a gross solar wattage output the equivalent of what is believed as prefeedback CO2 sensitivity that produces 1 deg C warming.
The only difference here is that solar wattage increases perform differently than uniformly distributed forcings.
So what do you get? Well you get 1/4the the rate of CO2 prefeedback
and you get 1/2 a degree of uniform surface temperature feedback for the 3/4 degree warming we have seen in the modern era.
But you also get 2 degrees of direct feedback from increased water vapor simply from evaporation of water during the well lit portions of the day.
So we could be looking at essentially the same output from a smaller change in solar. I am not arguing this is true but follow along further.
OK so we have the 2.75 degree warming as just a hypothesis. And lets say we have seen 1.25 degrees of it so far an