Can Anyone Say Maunder Minimum?

[SSDD]

Posting up the Debunked and shown manufactured Karl Et Al... You have no shame.

No one has debunked the verified Karl Et Al. You have no shame!

You would find it easier to find someone who hasn't debunked karl et al...


NOAA/NCDC’s new ‘pause-buster’ paper: a laughable attempt to create warming by adjusting past data

Open Letter to Tom Karl of NOAA/NCEI Regarding “Hiatus Busting” Paper

Pause Buster SST Data: Has NOAA Adjusted Away a Relationship between NMAT and SST that the Consensus of CMIP5 Climate Models Indicate Should Exist?

Twin peaks – twin prevarications

Karl et al. do not know that we have two hiatuses, not one

More Curiosities about NOAA’s New “Pause Busting” Sea Surface Temperature Dataset

A First Look at ‘Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus’ by Karl et al., Science 4 June 2015

@NOAA ‘s desperate new paper: Is there no global warming ‘hiatus’ after all?

Has NOAA / NCDC’s Tom Karl repealed the Laws of Thermodynamics?

The climate warming pause goes AWOL – or maybe not

A new way of looking at ‘The Pause’. Why Karl et al. got it wrong about ‘The Pause’. (Part 1)

 

[edthecynic]

Posting up the Debunked and shown manufactured Karl Et Al... You have no shame.

No one has debunked the verified Karl Et Al. You have no shame!

You would find it easier to find someone who hasn't debunked karl et al...


NOAA/NCDC’s new ‘pause-buster’ paper: a laughable attempt to create warming by adjusting past data

Open Letter to Tom Karl of NOAA/NCEI Regarding “Hiatus Busting” Paper

Pause Buster SST Data: Has NOAA Adjusted Away a Relationship between NMAT and SST that the Consensus of CMIP5 Climate Models Indicate Should Exist?

Twin peaks – twin prevarications

Karl et al. do not know that we have two hiatuses, not one

More Curiosities about NOAA’s New “Pause Busting” Sea Surface Temperature Dataset

A First Look at ‘Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus’ by Karl et al., Science 4 June 2015

@NOAA ‘s desperate new paper: Is there no global warming ‘hiatus’ after all?

Has NOAA / NCDC’s Tom Karl repealed the Laws of Thermodynamics?

The climate warming pause goes AWOL – or maybe not

A new way of looking at ‘The Pause’. Why Karl et al. got it wrong about ‘The Pause’. (Part 1)

Gee what a surprise, NOT, your links are from the thoroughly discredited WUWT denier website.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

In March our supplier of energy was more inactive than in the previous months. The sunspot number was only 2,5, which is only 8% of what is normal for this month into the average cycle (month 112).

A sunspot was detected only on 6 of 31 days.

It is well known that frigid phases on the planet are associated with low solar activity. A number of papers, for example, have linked the Little Ice Age of the 17th century to the low solar activity of the Maunder Minimum. Other published papers link cold winters in Europe to low solar activity as well.

Now it’s sure: solar cycle 24 will go down as the weakest in close to 200 years. Thus all the news of massive snow and ice this winter over the northern hemisphere don’t come as a surprise for many scientists.

I'm sure a Carbon tax will resolve solar activity.

Solar Activity Flat Lines…Cycle 24 Weakest In 200 Years…Link To Recent Northern Hemisphere Ice Rebound?

Maybe the Dems could tax the sun.
The Maryland Governor O’Malley taxed the rain.
Maryland Governor Taxes Rain | Breitbart

 

[Sunsettommy]

Posting up the Debunked and shown manufactured Karl Et Al... You have no shame.

No one has debunked the verified Karl Et Al. You have no shame!

You would find it easier to find someone who hasn't debunked karl et al...


NOAA/NCDC’s new ‘pause-buster’ paper: a laughable attempt to create warming by adjusting past data

Open Letter to Tom Karl of NOAA/NCEI Regarding “Hiatus Busting” Paper

Pause Buster SST Data: Has NOAA Adjusted Away a Relationship between NMAT and SST that the Consensus of CMIP5 Climate Models Indicate Should Exist?

Twin peaks – twin prevarications

Karl et al. do not know that we have two hiatuses, not one

More Curiosities about NOAA’s New “Pause Busting” Sea Surface Temperature Dataset

A First Look at ‘Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus’ by Karl et al., Science 4 June 2015

@NOAA ‘s desperate new paper: Is there no global warming ‘hiatus’ after all?

Has NOAA / NCDC’s Tom Karl repealed the Laws of Thermodynamics?

The climate warming pause goes AWOL – or maybe not

A new way of looking at ‘The Pause’. Why Karl et al. got it wrong about ‘The Pause’. (Part 1)

Gee what a surprise, NOT, your links are from the thoroughly discredited WUWT denier website.

Gee what a surprise that you didn't read any of it.

This is why warmist/alarmists are so IGNORANT of the various topics surrounding global warming/climate change.

Dr. Karl was easily exposed for his statistical games, just like DR. Mann.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Posting up the Debunked and shown manufactured Karl Et Al... You have no shame.

No one has debunked the verified Karl Et Al. You have no shame!

You would find it easier to find someone who hasn't debunked karl et al...


NOAA/NCDC’s new ‘pause-buster’ paper: a laughable attempt to create warming by adjusting past data

Open Letter to Tom Karl of NOAA/NCEI Regarding “Hiatus Busting” Paper

Pause Buster SST Data: Has NOAA Adjusted Away a Relationship between NMAT and SST that the Consensus of CMIP5 Climate Models Indicate Should Exist?

Twin peaks – twin prevarications

Karl et al. do not know that we have two hiatuses, not one

More Curiosities about NOAA’s New “Pause Busting” Sea Surface Temperature Dataset

A First Look at ‘Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus’ by Karl et al., Science 4 June 2015

@NOAA ‘s desperate new paper: Is there no global warming ‘hiatus’ after all?

Has NOAA / NCDC’s Tom Karl repealed the Laws of Thermodynamics?

The climate warming pause goes AWOL – or maybe not

A new way of looking at ‘The Pause’. Why Karl et al. got it wrong about ‘The Pause’. (Part 1)

Its rather funny with the amount of data out there this even in contention.. I find it funny that the majority of alarmists take this thing on faith even though there are mountains of information available showing it fallacy.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Posting up the Debunked and shown manufactured Karl Et Al... You have no shame.

No one has debunked the verified Karl Et Al. You have no shame!

You would find it easier to find someone who hasn't debunked karl et al...


NOAA/NCDC’s new ‘pause-buster’ paper: a laughable attempt to create warming by adjusting past data

Open Letter to Tom Karl of NOAA/NCEI Regarding “Hiatus Busting” Paper

Pause Buster SST Data: Has NOAA Adjusted Away a Relationship between NMAT and SST that the Consensus of CMIP5 Climate Models Indicate Should Exist?

Twin peaks – twin prevarications

Karl et al. do not know that we have two hiatuses, not one

More Curiosities about NOAA’s New “Pause Busting” Sea Surface Temperature Dataset

A First Look at ‘Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus’ by Karl et al., Science 4 June 2015

@NOAA ‘s desperate new paper: Is there no global warming ‘hiatus’ after all?

Has NOAA / NCDC’s Tom Karl repealed the Laws of Thermodynamics?

The climate warming pause goes AWOL – or maybe not

A new way of looking at ‘The Pause’. Why Karl et al. got it wrong about ‘The Pause’. (Part 1)

Gee what a surprise, NOT, your links are from the thoroughly discredited WUWT denier website.

Gee what a surprise that you didn't read any of it.

This is why warmist/alarmists are so IGNORANT of the various topics surrounding global warming/climate change.

Dr. Karl was easily exposed for his statistical games, just like DR. Mann.

They dismiss WUWT as a source but fail to go to the real sources of the information. Real scientists read the information and then make a judgment on its veracity from the original source. Some days I struggle reading the crap on Hotwhopper as I know where their crap data comes from but I still verify the origins of the source data. Most of these idiots couldn't tell you what data base was used let alone why its useless in scientific endeavors..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Posting up the Debunked and shown manufactured Karl Et Al... You have no shame.

No one has debunked the verified Karl Et Al. You have no shame!

And yet you haven't answered even one of my questions. Why would you not answer very easily answered questions? SO tell me about your pristine data set that can pass empirical verification...

 

[Crick]

And yet, "No one has debunked the verified Karl et al.". You appear to accept that. That would make your previous comments willful lies.

 

[Sunsettommy]

And yet, "No one has debunked the verified Karl et al.". You appear to accept that. That would make your previous comments willful lies.

There have been many, it is your willful refusal to counter any of it with your replies is why you are the fool here.

You have no idea what the obvious failure of his paper are since you NEVER investigated the claims on them.

That is why you remain ignorant.

 

[Old Rocks]

Links, asshole, to credible scientific sources.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Links, asshole, to credible scientific sources.

They have been posted already, but you quickly ignored them.

If you just read the Karl paper itself, the flaws are easy to spot, but since you are a proven science illiterate, you will never notice it.

 

[Old Rocks]

And yet, "No one has debunked the verified Karl et al.". You appear to accept that. That would make your previous comments willful lies.

There have been many, it is your willful refusal to counter any of it with your replies is why you are the fool here.

You have no idea what the obvious failure of his paper are since you NEVER investigated the claims on them.

That is why you remain ignorant.

Finally, we consider the impact of larger warming rates in high latitudes (24) on the overall global trend. To estimate the magnitude of the additional warming, we applied large-area interpolation over the poles using the limited observational data available. Results (Fig. 1) indicate that, indeed, additional global warming of a few hundredths of a degree Celsius per decade over the 21st century is evident, providing further evidence against the notion of a recent warming “hiatus.” See supplemental materials for details.

In summary, newly corrected and updated global surface temperature data from NOAA’s NCEI do not support the notion of a global warming “hiatus.” As shown in Fig. 1, there is no discernable (statistical or otherwise) decrease in the rate of warming between the second half of the 20th century and the first 15 years of the 21st century. Our new analysis now shows the trend over the period 1950-1999, a time widely agreed as having significant anthropogenic global warming (1), is 0.113°C dec−1, which is virtually indistinguishable with the trend over the period 2000-2014 (0.116°C dec−1). Even starting a trend calculation with 1998, the extremely warm El Niño year that is often used as the beginning of the “hiatus”, our global temperature trend (1998-2014) is 0.106°C dec−1 – and we know that is an underestimate due to incomplete coverage over the Arctic. Indeed, based on our new analysis, the IPCC’s (1) statement of two years ago – that the global surface temperature “has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than over the past 30 to 60 years” – is no longer valid.

Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus

Now show equally credible articles from real peer reviewed scientific journals.

 

[edthecynic]

There have been many, it is your willful refusal to counter any of it with your replies is why you are the fool here.

You have no idea what the obvious failure of his paper are since you NEVER investigated the claims on them.

That is why you remain ignorant.

First they attacked Karl et al with a fake graph using 2 (TWO) different baselines, but the same people who have a shit fit about the resolution of tree ring data had no problem. Then that denier lie was thoroughly exposed, they pulled the graph and then lied about what Dr Bates said. Bates said more than once that Karl did NOT in any way manipulate the data, his objection was ONLY to the archival process, but the lying scum GOP Senate committee and the denier echo chamber falsely claimed Dr Bates accused Karl of manipulating the data. After being caught blatantly lying twice, why would an honest person want to waste time with whatever new lies you scum have fabricated. If you could have actually debunked Karl, you would have done it with the "truth" FIRST rather than LIE twice first.

 

[Sunsettommy]

And yet, "No one has debunked the verified Karl et al.". You appear to accept that. That would make your previous comments willful lies.

There have been many, it is your willful refusal to counter any of it with your replies is why you are the fool here.

You have no idea what the obvious failure of his paper are since you NEVER investigated the claims on them.

That is why you remain ignorant.

Finally, we consider the impact of larger warming rates in high latitudes (24) on the overall global trend. To estimate the magnitude of the additional warming, we applied large-area interpolation over the poles using the limited observational data available. Results (Fig. 1) indicate that, indeed, additional global warming of a few hundredths of a degree Celsius per decade over the 21st century is evident, providing further evidence against the notion of a recent warming “hiatus.” See supplemental materials for details.

In summary, newly corrected and updated global surface temperature data from NOAA’s NCEI do not support the notion of a global warming “hiatus.” As shown in Fig. 1, there is no discernable (statistical or otherwise) decrease in the rate of warming between the second half of the 20th century and the first 15 years of the 21st century. Our new analysis now shows the trend over the period 1950-1999, a time widely agreed as having significant anthropogenic global warming (1), is 0.113°C dec−1, which is virtually indistinguishable with the trend over the period 2000-2014 (0.116°C dec−1). Even starting a trend calculation with 1998, the extremely warm El Niño year that is often used as the beginning of the “hiatus”, our global temperature trend (1998-2014) is 0.106°C dec−1 – and we know that is an underestimate due to incomplete coverage over the Arctic. Indeed, based on our new analysis, the IPCC’s (1) statement of two years ago – that the global surface temperature “has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than over the past 30 to 60 years” – is no longer valid.

Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus

Now show equally credible articles from real peer reviewed scientific journals.

You are so clueless, will give you a hint here:

Sea temperature data

 

[Sunsettommy]

There have been many, it is your willful refusal to counter any of it with your replies is why you are the fool here.

You have no idea what the obvious failure of his paper are since you NEVER investigated the claims on them.

That is why you remain ignorant.

First they attacked Karl et al with a fake graph using 2 (TWO) different baselines, but the same people who have a shit fit about the resolution of tree ring data had no problem. Then that denier lie was thoroughly exposed, they pulled the graph and then lied about what Dr Bates said. Bates said more than once that Karl did NOT in any way manipulate the data, his objection was ONLY to the archival process, but the lying scum GOP Senate committee and the denier echo chamber falsely claimed Dr Bates accused Karl of manipulating the data. After being caught blatantly lying twice, why would an honest person want to waste time with whatever new lies you scum have fabricated. If you could have actually debunked Karl, you would have done it with the "truth" FIRST rather than LIE twice first.

It is clear that neither You or Old Rocks have a clue to what Dr. Karl did to make it go away. Hint: he made unjustified adjustments to the sea temperature data.

The whole this is moot anyway since even using HIS result still destroys the AGW conjecture, since warming rate is LESS than 1/2 the predicted/projected warming rate as published in the IPCC reports.

You guys are so far behind the curve, it is hilarious!

 

[edthecynic]

There have been many, it is your willful refusal to counter any of it with your replies is why you are the fool here.

You have no idea what the obvious failure of his paper are since you NEVER investigated the claims on them.

That is why you remain ignorant.

First they attacked Karl et al with a fake graph using 2 (TWO) different baselines, but the same people who have a shit fit about the resolution of tree ring data had no problem. Then that denier lie was thoroughly exposed, they pulled the graph and then lied about what Dr Bates said. Bates said more than once that Karl did NOT in any way manipulate the data, his objection was ONLY to the archival process, but the lying scum GOP Senate committee and the denier echo chamber falsely claimed Dr Bates accused Karl of manipulating the data. After being caught blatantly lying twice, why would an honest person want to waste time with whatever new lies you scum have fabricated. If you could have actually debunked Karl, you would have done it with the "truth" FIRST rather than LIE twice first.

It is clear that neither You or Old Rocks have a clue to what Dr. Karl did to make it go away. Hint: he made unjustified adjustments to the sea temperature data.

The whole this is moot anyway since even using HIS result still destroys the AGW conjecture, since warming rate is LESS than 1/2 the predicted/projected warming rate as published in the IPCC reports.

You guys are so far behind the curve, it is hilarious!

Dr Bates say you are worthless lying scum. Be proud, be very proud.

 

[edthecynic]

The whole this is moot anyway since even using HIS result still destroys the AGW conjecture, since warming rate is LESS than 1/2 the predicted/projected warming rate

So, how does YOU admitting that there WAS a WARMING trend, no matter what the size, during your phony "hiatus" prove there was really a hiatus???

 

[Sunsettommy]

There have been many, it is your willful refusal to counter any of it with your replies is why you are the fool here.

You have no idea what the obvious failure of his paper are since you NEVER investigated the claims on them.

That is why you remain ignorant.

First they attacked Karl et al with a fake graph using 2 (TWO) different baselines, but the same people who have a shit fit about the resolution of tree ring data had no problem. Then that denier lie was thoroughly exposed, they pulled the graph and then lied about what Dr Bates said. Bates said more than once that Karl did NOT in any way manipulate the data, his objection was ONLY to the archival process, but the lying scum GOP Senate committee and the denier echo chamber falsely claimed Dr Bates accused Karl of manipulating the data. After being caught blatantly lying twice, why would an honest person want to waste time with whatever new lies you scum have fabricated. If you could have actually debunked Karl, you would have done it with the "truth" FIRST rather than LIE twice first.

It is clear that neither You or Old Rocks have a clue to what Dr. Karl did to make it go away. Hint: he made unjustified adjustments to the sea temperature data.

The whole this is moot anyway since even using HIS result still destroys the AGW conjecture, since warming rate is LESS than 1/2 the predicted/projected warming rate as published in the IPCC reports.

You guys are so far behind the curve, it is hilarious!

Dr Bates say you are worthless lying scum. Be proud, be very proud.

Translation: I can only offer baseless insults, in order to avoid addressing my helpful hints I have posted

Dr. Bates was actually critical of how Dr. Karl was handling his data archives, didn't criticize the paper itself. I haven't attacked Dr. Bates at all because what he did was proper.

 

[Sunsettommy]

The whole this is moot anyway since even using HIS result still destroys the AGW conjecture, since warming rate is LESS than 1/2 the predicted/projected warming rate

So, how does YOU admitting that there WAS a WARMING trend, no matter what the size, during your phony "hiatus" prove there was really a hiatus???

He he, you forgot this part I wrote:

"It is clear that neither You or Old Rocks have a clue to what Dr. Karl did to make it go away. Hint: he made unjustified adjustments to the sea temperature data."

I KNOW what he did to erase the "hiatus" which was to make an unjustified adjustment to a set of low resolution data upward. Despite this action, it didn't help the warmist case anyway since the warming trend he created out of thin air fails to support the Per Decade warming rate prediction/projection. It is still half the rate, which you try hard to ignore with your childish insults.

When will you guys stop being a fool?

 

[edthecynic]

There have been many, it is your willful refusal to counter any of it with your replies is why you are the fool here.

You have no idea what the obvious failure of his paper are since you NEVER investigated the claims on them.

That is why you remain ignorant.

First they attacked Karl et al with a fake graph using 2 (TWO) different baselines, but the same people who have a shit fit about the resolution of tree ring data had no problem. Then that denier lie was thoroughly exposed, they pulled the graph and then lied about what Dr Bates said. Bates said more than once that Karl did NOT in any way manipulate the data, his objection was ONLY to the archival process, but the lying scum GOP Senate committee and the denier echo chamber falsely claimed Dr Bates accused Karl of manipulating the data. After being caught blatantly lying twice, why would an honest person want to waste time with whatever new lies you scum have fabricated. If you could have actually debunked Karl, you would have done it with the "truth" FIRST rather than LIE twice first.

It is clear that neither You or Old Rocks have a clue to what Dr. Karl did to make it go away. Hint: he made unjustified adjustments to the sea temperature data.

The whole this is moot anyway since even using HIS result still destroys the AGW conjecture, since warming rate is LESS than 1/2 the predicted/projected warming rate as published in the IPCC reports.

You guys are so far behind the curve, it is hilarious!

Dr Bates say you are worthless lying scum. Be proud, be very proud.

Translation: I can only offer baseless insults, in order to avoid addressing my helpful hints I have posted

Dr. Bates was actually critical of how Dr. Karl was handling his data archives, didn't criticize the paper itself. I haven't attacked Dr. Bates at all because what he did was proper.

Still LYING!

I posted what Dr. Bates wrote in a blog presentation. He makes clear he is not happy with the Karl paper.