Dec update of the global temperature trend.

[ScienceRocks]

Dec update of the global temperature trend.

My findings...
1. I added in from 1998-2013 long term ENSO. This shows 1999-2001 as cold, 2002-2007 warm and 2008-2013 overall cold.
1.1 1998-2013 was + or - long term trend within section 3.4 of the tropical pacific.
2. 1991-1997 was recovering from the eruption of Pinatubo and 1984 is also another such volcano. This gives the appearance of upwards of twice the warming.

2.1 I used the 1979-1984 before the volcano's in order to give a more accurate trend. Notice how per-eruption is warmer in both cases...This means forcing - volcanic forcing = new forcing. Volcano's negative forcing hasn't caused a long term effect on the trend after 10 years in both cases.

Short term 1-10 year forcings that we recover out of was smoothed over...

My second graph on the right shows the effects of the volcano's rebound.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Here is a graph showing how a linear rate of warming since the 1980's can work with - enso and volcano.

 

[Kosh]

Yes this from one that believes that Global Warming and AGW are the same things.

 

[Old Rocks]

If you put GHGs into the atmosphere, you are going to get warming. And since mankind is the culprit in this case, that warming is AGW. Simple logic, that escapes your ever so simple mind.

 

[Kosh]

If you put GHGs into the atmosphere, you are going to get warming. And since mankind is the culprit in this case, that warming is AGW. Simple logic, that escapes your ever so simple mind.

Another one that thinks all GHG come from humans.

Just goes to shows the AGW cult is in full force.

 

[Old Rocks]

If you put GHGs into the atmosphere, you are going to get warming. And since mankind is the culprit in this case, that warming is AGW. Simple logic, that escapes your ever so simple mind.

Another one that thinks all GHG come from humans.

Just goes to shows the AGW cult is in full force.

Another flap-yapper that cannot present even a minimal arguement for his position. Here, dummy, are the facts;

Which produces more CO2, volcanic or human activity?

Gas studies at volcanoes worldwide have helped volcanologists tally up a global volcanic CO2 budget in the same way that nations around the globe have cooperated to determine how much CO2 is released by human activity through the burning of fossil fuels. Our studies show that globally, volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually.

This seems like a huge amount of CO2, but a visit to the U.S. Department of Energy's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) website (Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC)) helps anyone armed with a handheld calculator and a high school chemistry text put the volcanic CO2 tally into perspective. Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value.

That is from the United State Geological Service. Not some blog on the net.

 

[TheOldSchool]

I just want a few damned snow days. It hasn't snowed a lick the last 2 years. Gimme a good blizzard!

 

[flacaltenn]

What do you think this OP is about Mattew.. And why didn't you credit UAH and Dr Spencer..

Second question is --- How cum you have several threads SCREAMING about how Nov 2013 was a RECORD month for warming when UAH has it at 0.19degC anomaly??

 

[mudwhistle]

The oceans pump more methane into the air than cattle or humans. Most greenhouse gases are water vapor. Sunspot activity is down which means lower temperatures across the board. This is going to be a very cold Winter.

 

[ScienceRocks]

What do you think this OP is about Mattew.. And why didn't you credit UAH and Dr Spencer..

Second question is --- How cum you have several threads SCREAMING about how Nov 2013 was a RECORD month for warming when UAH has it at 0.19degC anomaly??

1. I used their graphs but put my trends on them.
2. Because it is close enough not really to matter...It is all about the overall trend that matters.

Get it?

 

[flacaltenn]

What do you think this OP is about Mattew.. And why didn't you credit UAH and Dr Spencer..

Second question is --- How cum you have several threads SCREAMING about how Nov 2013 was a RECORD month for warming when UAH has it at 0.19degC anomaly??

1. I used their graphs but put my trends on them.
2. Because it is close enough not really to matter...It is all about the overall trend that matters.

Get it?

OK -- thanks for that.. ENSO as part of a GLOBAL average hardly matters. That's why reducing everything to global averages tells you fucking nothing about how the climate works.. But you know that now

As for #2 above --- November not even CLOSE to setting records of any IMPORTANT type on the more standard baseline.. In fact, Nov led a GLOBAL DECREASE in temperatures. The fact that Nov was warm is WEATHER --- not climate.. And it WASN'T any breaking news for global warming..

Averaging everything climate into ONE SILLY ASS NUMBER --- will give you pretty much useless sports statistics..

 

[flacaltenn]

I took another look at your ENSO line -- I thought it was a temp graph..
There IS an effect there.. But if you have the dates correct --- the temp. rises PRECEEDED the ENSO changes.

Perhaps you need to actually plot the MAGNITUDE of the ENSO changes in parallel with the UAH data.