Global Cooling Theory picks up Steam

[Old Rocks]

Dont know how sophisticated guys like you fall for some kind of data glitch and crap your britches without checking. If you push that link right now, the highest high in the 10 day forecast is low 60s.

Somebody went on vacation and forgot to set a timer. Or NASA GISS has intercepted the streams while everyone is on vacation.

Almanac
History
Almanac for July 4, 2015
PAPM Forecast Average * Range *
Temperature
High 60 °F 51 °F 55 to 55 °F
Low 52 °F 43 °F 46 to 46 °F
Precipitation
Rain 0.04 in 0.00 in 0.00 to 0.00 in
Snow 0 in in to in
Dew Point
Low - 44 °F 44 to 44 °F
High - 48 °F 48 to 48 °F
Almanac for Yesterday July 3, 2015
Actual Average * Record
Temperature
High 90 °F 51 °F 61 °F (1997)
Low 77 °F 43 °F 38 °F (2013)
Yesterday's Heating Degree Days: 0

Of course, everyone is in on a grand conspiracy to fool little old you. Cannot trust anyone but me and thee, and we are not so sure of thee.

 

[Old Rocks]

Baked Alaska, anyone?

https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/Alaska-RTMA-23z-tsa_lrg.jpg

 

[flacaltenn]

1, member: 13758"]

Dont know how sophisticated guys like you fall for some kind of data glitch and crap your britches without checking. If you push that link right now, the highest high in the 10 day forecast is low 60s.

Somebody went on vacation and fot to set a timer. Or NASA GISS has intercepted the streams while everyone is on vacation.

Almanac
History
Almanac forit waJuly 4, 2015
PAPM Forecast Average * Range *
Temperature
High 60 °F 51 °F 55 to 55 °F
Low 52 °F 43 °F 46 to 46 °F
Precipitation
Rain 0.04 in 0.00 in 0.00 to 0.00 in
Snow 0 in in to in
Dew Point
Low - 44 °F 44 to 44 °F
High - 48 °F 48 to 48 °F
Almanac for Yesterday July 3, 2015
Actual Average * Record
Temperature
High 90 °F 51 °F 61 °F (1997)
Low 77 °F 43 °F 38 °F (2013)
Yesterday's Heating Degree Days: 0

Of course, everyone is in on a grand conspiracy to fool little old you. Cannot trust anyone but me and thee, and we are not so sure of thee.

[/QUOTE]

Dont know how sophisticated guys like you fall for some kind of data glitch and crap your britches without checking. If you push that link right now, the highest high in the 10 day forecast is low 60s.

Somebody went on vacation and forgot to set a timer. Or NASA GISS has intercepted the streams while everyone is on vacation.

Almanac
History
Almanac for July 4, 2015
PAPM Forecast Average * Range *
Temperature
High 60 °F 51 °F 55 to 55 °F
Low 52 °F 43 °F 46 to 46 °F
Precipitation
Rain 0.04 in 0.00 in 0.00 to 0.00 in
Snow 0 in in to in
Dew Point
Low - 44 °F 44 to 44 °F
High - 48 °F 48 to 48 °F
Almanac for Yesterday July 3, 2015
Actual Average * Record
Temperature
High 90 °F 51 °F 61 °F (1997)
Low 77 °F 43 °F 38 °F (2013)
Yesterday's Heating Degree Days: 0

Of course, everyone is in on a grand conspiracy to fool little old you. Cannot trust anyone but me and thee, and we are not so sure of thee.

Forecast for 10 days is no higher than 63 degF... So what? Think there arent a few summer beach days when the sun is up most of the whole day?

Think about the statistic.. it is a ONE DATE record temp. Out of say an 80 day summer. Its truly useless for determining a trend. Because July 1 could have had a record temp in 1940 of 94 and July 22 could have a record temp of 95 in 1827. AND theres probably a couple July days that are just statistically 100 years late in being hit. Thats what makes statistics so much "fun"......

Useless to fuss about scientifically.

And It wasnt 120 was it? Makes you wonder if the site is right over their salmon smoker...

 

[SSDD]

Ok, one more time for Kosh:

Human civilization is not significantly more than 12,000 years old. Current temperartures are by far the highest during that period and , as YOUR graphic shows, higher than at any sustained level in the last TEN MILLION YEARS.

Can you stop ranting long enough to think about what that actually means?

So you are now claiming that the present temperatures are higher than they were during the holocene optimum? Just want to be clear on how big a liar you are, you understand because even wiki acknowledges that the holocene optimum was considerably warmer than the present.

 

[Crick]

Yeah, I am.

"Holocene Temperature Variations". Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons - File Holocene Temperature Variations.png - Wikimedia Commons

 

[flacaltenn]

Yeah, I am.

"Holocene Temperature Variations". Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons - File Holocene Temperature Variations.png - Wikimedia Commons

Again. For the 49th time.. NONE of those studies can show 50 to 100 year perturbations in temperature. If you took a running 100 yr filter to OUR little spike -- it would virtually disappear.. Those charts are good for estimating "climate timescale" changes. And I ASSUME --- all of those squiggly pastel pretty lines pretty much leaves OUR current spike in the running as not unusual..

 

[flacaltenn]

Interesting stuff. I have to admit, I believe in man-made CO2 caused warming. I have seen the area I live in become warmer and dyer, with occasional extremes in rain or cold snaps. These observable changes came over a blink of the eye, 20 years, in geological terms. My basic understanding of this that such changes take hundreds if not thousands of years to effect the climate. But 20 years? Something's fishy in Denmark. How long is this solar blurp going to take before we notice it? I will entertain this phenomena, because science is about facts, not dogma. Forgive me, but this seems like a stalling tactic or avoidance scheme more than science. But, it puts crack in the Global warming theory.

Most all skeptics -- including myself -- accept that we are seeing a minor warming. That's not in contention. I'm completely convinced that all the early modeling and hysterical predictions severely UNDERestimated the effects of the sun and other natural known SHORT-TERM cycles. That's why the majority of GW model predictions are already failing just 10 or 20 years since they were run. We are trying to divine Climate futures by looking at a very SHORT period of time. The Earths climate takes to 100s of year to respond and adjust to perturbations. Doesn't spin on dime..

How long til we KNOW if the sun takes a minor nap? It's definitive. The sun cycles in 11 to 12 year cycles. We only have to wait another cycle or two before we find out..

 

[Crick]

The accompanying text

Summary

The main figure shows eight records of local temperature variability on multi-centennial scales throughout the course of theHolocene, and an average of these (thick dark line). The data are for the period from 10000 BC to 2000 CE, which is from 12000 BP to the present time. The records are plotted with respect to the mid 20th century average temperature, and the global average temperature in 2004 is indicated. An inset plot compares the most recent two millennia of the average to other recent reconstructions. At the far right of this insert plot, it is possible to observe the emergence of climate from the last glacial period of the current ice age. During the Holocene itself, there is general scientific agreement that temperatures on the average have been quite stable compared to fluctuations during the preceding glacial period. The above average curve supports this belief. However, there is a slightly warmer period in the middle which might be identified with the proposedHolocene climatic optimum. The magnitude and nature of this warm event is disputed, and it may have been largely limited to high northern latitudes.

Because of the limitations of data sampling, each curve in the main plot was smoothed (see methods below) and consequently, this figure can not resolve temperature fluctuations faster than approximately 300 years. Further, while 2004 appears warmer than any other time in the long-term average, and hence might be a sign of global warming, it should also be noted that the 2004 measurement is from a single year (actually the fourth highest on record, see Image:Short Instrumental Temperature Record.png for comparison). It is impossible to know whether similarly large short-term temperature fluctuations may have occurred at other times, but are unresolved by the available resolution. The next 150 years will determine whether the long-term average centered on the present appears anomalous with respect to this plot.

Since there is no scientific consensus on how to reconstruct global temperature variations during the Holocene, the average shown here should be understood as only a rough, quasi-global approximation to the temperature history of the Holocene. In particular, higher resolution data and better spatial coverage could significantly alter the apparent long-term behavior (see below for further caveats). For another estimate of Holocene temperature fluctuations, see: [1]

While any conclusions to be drawn from the long-term average must be considered crude and potentially controversial, one can comment on a number of well established inferences from the individual curves contributing to the average. First, at many locations, there exist large temperature fluctuations on multi-centennial scales. Hence, climate change lasting for centuries appears to be a common feature of many regions. Assuming the timing information from these records is reasonably accurate, it appears that in many cases large changes at any particular site may occur without correlating to similarly large changes at other sites. Secondly, it is also notable that different locations appear to take different amounts of time to reach typical Holocene conditions following the last glacial termination. Scientists generally agree that warming concluded in the far Southern Hemisphere earlier than in most other regions. In part, the prolonged climate change may be related to prolonged changes in sea level, which took till roughly 6000 years ago to reach near modern levels. Some of the differences may also reflect timescale uncertainties.
*********************************************************************************************************************************
And, yes, I still believe current temperatures are the highest in the Holocene.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The accompanying text

Summary

The main figure shows eight records of local temperature variability on multi-centennial scales throughout the course of theHolocene, and an average of these (thick dark line). The data are for the period from 10000 BC to 2000 CE, which is from 12000 BP to the present time. The records are plotted with respect to the mid 20th century average temperature, and the global average temperature in 2004 is indicated. An inset plot compares the most recent two millennia of the average to other recent reconstructions. At the far right of this insert plot, it is possible to observe the emergence of climate from the last glacial period of the current ice age. During the Holocene itself, there is general scientific agreement that temperatures on the average have been quite stable compared to fluctuations during the preceding glacial period. The above average curve supports this belief. However, there is a slightly warmer period in the middle which might be identified with the proposedHolocene climatic optimum. The magnitude and nature of this warm event is disputed, and it may have been largely limited to high northern latitudes.

Because of the limitations of data sampling, each curve in the main plot was smoothed (see methods below) and consequently, this figure can not resolve temperature fluctuations faster than approximately 300 years. Further, while 2004 appears warmer than any other time in the long-term average, and hence might be a sign of global warming, it should also be noted that the 2004 measurement is from a single year (actually the fourth highest on record, see Image:Short Instrumental Temperature Record.png for comparison). It is impossible to know whether similarly large short-term temperature fluctuations may have occurred at other times, but are unresolved by the available resolution. The next 150 years will determine whether the long-term average centered on the present appears anomalous with respect to this plot.

Since there is no scientific consensus on how to reconstruct global temperature variations during the Holocene, the average shown here should be understood as only a rough, quasi-global approximation to the temperature history of the Holocene. In particular, higher resolution data and better spatial coverage could significantly alter the apparent long-term behavior (see below for further caveats). For another estimate of Holocene temperature fluctuations, see: [1]

While any conclusions to be drawn from the long-term average must be considered crude and potentially controversial, one can comment on a number of well established inferences from the individual curves contributing to the average. First, at many locations, there exist large temperature fluctuations on multi-centennial scales. Hence, climate change lasting for centuries appears to be a common feature of many regions. Assuming the timing information from these records is reasonably accurate, it appears that in many cases large changes at any particular site may occur without correlating to similarly large changes at other sites. Secondly, it is also notable that different locations appear to take different amounts of time to reach typical Holocene conditions following the last glacial termination. Scientists generally agree that warming concluded in the far Southern Hemisphere earlier than in most other regions. In part, the prolonged climate change may be related to prolonged changes in sea level, which took till roughly 6000 years ago to reach near modern levels. Some of the differences may also reflect timescale uncertainties.
*********************************************************************************************************************************
And, yes, I still believe current temperatures are the highest in the Holocene.

You would be wrong...

As most temperature graphs are at a 300 year resolution because they are derived from secondary sources (proxies) which can not show levels at less than 150 years. Tacking on a 10 year plot to these graphs is not only dishonest it is a fabrication and manipulation. Michale Mann comes to mind when I discuss this and his now discredited Hokey Schtick.

When we average the last 300 years, your plot of warming is gone. It doesn't last long enough to be seen in the long term historical record. The Holocene however lasted very long and within it there is most certainly spikes much warmer than today for that time span to be seen warmer than today.

I see you failed basic statistics.

 

[Crick]

I aced statistics. You don't seem to have ever taken it.

Attachments of instrument data onto proxy data is routine and is always clearly identified. Thus it is NOT dishonest, a fabrication or a manipulation. A running 300 year average of the last 300 years - when the resolution of the data is about a ten-thousandth that span - THAT'S dishonest.

 

[flacaltenn]

I aced statistics. You don't seem to have ever taken it.

Attachments of instrument data onto proxy data is routine and is always clearly identified. Thus it is NOT dishonest, a fabrication or a manipulation. A running 300 year average of the last 300 years - when the resolution of the data is about a ten-thousandth that span - THAT'S dishonest.

There IS no 300 year averaging of the tacked on modern data. Running or otherwise. If there WERE -- 2015 would just be an unknown blip on downward going curve..

But even still. MANY of those identical proxy studies show HIGHER spikes for THOUSANDS of years. Did you miss those?

D'oh --- that's right. ACED statistics, failed graph reading.. Actually might have some reading comp problems as well. Could save me and BillyBob some time if you read your own links..

Since there is no scientific consensus on how to reconstruct global temperature variations during the Holocene, the average shown here should be understood as only a rough, quasi-global approximation to the temperature history of the Holocene. In particular, higher resolution data and better spatial coverage could significantly alter the apparent long-term behavior (see below for further caveats). For another estimate of Holocene temperature fluctuations, see: [1]

While any conclusions to be drawn from the long-term average must be considered crude and potentiallycontroversial, one can comment on a number of well established inferences from the individual curves contributing to the average. First, at many locations, there exist large temperature fluctuations on multi-centennial scales. Hence, climate change lasting for centuries appears to be a common feature of many regions.

How many times has ole FlaCalTenn told you that INDIVIDUAL proxy studies are WAY more informative than attempting to make some kind of "global" or ad hoc average out of them.

 

[flacaltenn]

I aced statistics. You don't seem to have ever taken it.

Attachments of instrument data onto proxy data is routine and is always clearly identified. Thus it is NOT dishonest, a fabrication or a manipulation. A running 300 year average of the last 300 years - when the resolution of the data is about a ten-thousandth that span - THAT'S dishonest.

Did you just edit that last line? or did I just miss that? Pardon me a minute..

 

[Billy_Bob]

I aced statistics. You don't seem to have ever taken it.

Attachments of instrument data onto proxy data is routine and is always clearly identified. Thus it is NOT dishonest, a fabrication or a manipulation. A running 300 year average of the last 300 years - when the resolution of the data is about a ten-thousandth that span - THAT'S dishonest.

There is NO running THREE HUNDRED YEAR AVERAGE IN PROXIES.....

You dont have a clue... I can not believe that you passed even basic statistics. I want to know where you get your magical numbers from for temps that span less than 150 years in proxies data.

Are you and Mike Mann smoking tree rings again?

 

[SSDD]

Which issue is that? Monckton's supposed discovery of a math error (verified by Billy Bob) or the "global cooling theory" picking up steam?

The fact that you aren't demonstrating where Monckton made a math error. Not only do you not get science....nor can you read a graph...you are unable to identify your own logical errors.

 

[SSDD]

Which issue is that? Monckton's supposed discovery of a math error (verified by Billy Bob) or the "global cooling theory" picking up steam?

You really are ignorant. Monckton framed the question and did the math using the IPCC's own numbers. He found that climate sensitivity was so severely exaggerated that it was worth an essay on it. I questioned his math as did others here, so I replicated (did the math) to see if Monckton was correct. He is.

Now you can adhom bomb me if you like but science is about replicating hypothesis's and theroys. Questioning the status quo. This is why the science is never settled and true scientists never used the term.

The essay by Monckton shows why the models fail to reproduce anything near reality and fail with 100% certainty.

A simple concept that alarmists will never grasp and why you so desperately try to hide the cooling that is occurring.

Sorry, no. For Monckton and you, no.

Let me be clear about this: I utterly reject the suggestion that Monckton (BS in Journalism) did any of that math, that you (retired cop) checked him on any of that math or that this math catches errors committed and missed in review by multiple PhDs.

Still locked in logical fallacy...show us the error and explain why it is an error....neither your opinion....nor your faith in the IPCC addresses the math error that has been identified...nor does either demonstrate that Moncton is wrong.

 

[SSDD]

Monckton and Watts inadvertently reveal global warming Pause to be clumsy fraud

I just want to emphasize the link that Old Rocks has provided here illustrating a clear and undeniable example of dishonesty on the part of Christopher Monckton and Anthony Watts.

I might add that the graphs in question have appeared here repeatedly.

And the logical fallacy continues....now from crick and rocks....rather than engage in attempted character assassination...simply point out where Monckton is wrong...show us his mathematical error.

 

[SSDD]

So which one is it, Old Rocks and crickham? Ignorance or hypocrisy?

Yes.

 

[SSDD]

Yeah, I am.

"Holocene Temperature Variations". Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons - File Holocene Temperature Variations.png - Wikimedia Commons

Not surprised....the fact that you are both stupid and dishonest are well known. Caught in lie after lie and even banned for your behavior...Unsurprising.

 

[SSDD]

I aced statistics. You don't seem to have ever taken it.

Attachments of instrument data onto proxy data is routine and is always clearly identified. Thus it is NOT dishonest, a fabrication or a manipulation. A running 300 year average of the last 300 years - when the resolution of the data is about a ten-thousandth that span - THAT'S dishonest.

You never aced anything....you have demonstrated over and over and over a complete inability to read a graph and understand what it means....the idea that you even passed statistics....much less aced it is laughable in the face of reality.

 

[Crick]

I aced statistics. You don't seem to have ever taken it.

Attachments of instrument data onto proxy data is routine and is always clearly identified. Thus it is NOT dishonest, a fabrication or a manipulation. A running 300 year average of the last 300 years - when the resolution of the data is about a ten-thousandth that span - THAT'S dishonest.

You never aced anything....you have demonstrated over and over and over a complete inability to read a graph and understand what it means....the idea that you even passed statistics....much less aced it is laughable in the face of reality.

Do you ACTUALLY think I have the slightest concern what YOU think of my science skills? YOU?!?!? The man who rejects quantum mechanics in its entirety? The man who believes all matter is omniscient and can throttle and direct its own radiations? Give us a fucking break.