Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The "blackboard" is not the UAH, you are really desperate.
there are the trends for UAH and RSS since 2000 or 2001, depending on how you want to define decade trend. both are much less that the 0.14C/decade trend that you stated which covers the whole time period since satellites started measuring temps in 1979
The Blackboard » UAH vs RSS Trends since 2001 or 2000
No links to either satellite data or Hansen, what a surprise, NOT! Just made up crap from the denier site Real [fake] Science.
arctic temps (from spotty data) vs arctic temps with infills where there is no data.
TAKE NOTE: From Update 13 Sep 2010 *************************
As an alert, we will be generating anomalies when the December data have been processed to be based on the 30-year mean annual cycle of 1981-2010 to match the 30-year normal time frame of many meteorology anomalies. This will replace the older reference annual cycle of 20-years (1979-1998).
No links to either satellite data or Hansen, what a surprise, NOT! Just made up crap from the denier site Real [fake] Science.
arctic temps (from spotty data) vs arctic temps with infills where there is no data.
The "blackboard" is not the UAH, you are really desperate.
there are the trends for UAH and RSS since 2000 or 2001, depending on how you want to define decade trend. both are much less that the 0.14C/decade trend that you stated which covers the whole time period since satellites started measuring temps in 1979
The Blackboard » UAH vs RSS Trends since 2001 or 2000
The direct link to the UAH site seems to be down, but here is the UAH data mirrored on the denier site JunkScience.
JunkScience.com's "Global Warming" at a glance
[FONT=arial, verdana, helvetica]UAH Global Temperature Report for the current month (The University of Alabama in Huntsville
[/FONT][FONT=arial, verdana, helvetica]Temperature Variation From Average:
Lower Troposphere:
Global:
[FONT=arial, verdana, helvetica]November 2011: +0.12 °C[/FONT]
Northern Hemisphere: +0.08 °C
Southern Hemisphere: +0.17 °C[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, verdana, helvetica]Peak recorded anomaly:
February, 1998: +0.66 °C
Current relative to peak recorded: -0.54 °C [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, verdana, helvetica]DECADAL TREND:
Global: +0.14 °C
Northern Hemisphere: +0.20 °C
Southern Hemisphere: +0.08 °C [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, verdana, helvetica]Last update: December 17, 2011[/FONT]
BULLSHIT!!!the 0.14C/decade trend is for the whole period from 1979, not the last decade.TAKE NOTE: From Update 13 Sep 2010 *************************
As an alert, we will be generating anomalies when the December data have been processed to be based on the 30-year mean annual cycle of 1981-2010 to match the 30-year normal time frame of many meteorology anomalies. This will replace the older reference annual cycle of 20-years (1979-1998).
Please identify the satellite that came from. You won't because it isn't satellite data. The fact remains, satellite data, which is not vulnerable to UHI effects or placement of sensors near heat sources, shows warming for the last decade and have not been fudged by Hansen.
Edthecynic is a left wing partisan hack, and Ian, you have pretty much pwned him. However, he will never EVER turn away from the Church of Al Gore no matter what. You are wasting your time.
Please identify the satellite that came from. You won't because it isn't satellite data. The fact remains, satellite data, which is not vulnerable to UHI effects or placement of sensors near heat sources, shows warming for the last decade and have not been fudged by Hansen.
Admit the truth for once in your life, you will feel better.
Then why did you ask honest people to lie about it cooling for "at least the last decade?"actually I think the point of the OP is to ask climate scientists to stop manipulating data to distort and exaggerate conclusions into preordained statements of catastrophic AGW.
Even data from deniers Christy and Spencer, who actually got caught manipulating the data to distort and exaggerate a conclusion of global cooling while it was actually warming, shows the globe has warmed [FONT=arial, verdana, helvetica]+0.14 °C this last decade.[/FONT]
even the BEST data, which havent gone through peer review yet to see if the way they cut up data adds a spurious warming, shows that 1/3 of the locations show cooling. the global average temp uses a lot of areas like the arctic which has madeup and infilled data that say what the people running the data sets want them to say. the whole thing depends on the weightings of different areas, and the adjustments made to the raw data.
how is it dishonest when the satellites dont give numbers for areas they dont cover but it is OK with you when Hansen makes up numbers for those same areas?
Again the dumb act!Please identify the satellite that came from. You won't because it isn't satellite data. The fact remains, satellite data, which is not vulnerable to UHI effects or placement of sensors near heat sources, shows warming for the last decade and have not been fudged by Hansen.
Admit the truth for once in your life, you will feel better.
why are you talking about satellites? Hansen doesnt use satellites, he uses surface based readings that are massively transformed by unaccountable 'adjustments'. GISS uses infills and averaging over various sized grid cells to emphisize warming in poorly measured areas while de-emphisizing well measured areas that dont show much (or any) warming.
Your high priests have told you that they alter data to fit their model...and you still support them.New Years resolutions for denialist.
Tell more and bigger lies.
They altered data to fit the model.This says it all! Here is an excerpt from Hansens latest plea for help. This sort of verbiage only exists in the minds of the mentally challenged.i
"The precision achieved by the most advanced generation of radiation budget satellites is indicated by the planetary energy imbalance measured by the ongoing CERES (Clouds and the Earths Radiant Energy System) instrument (Loeb et al., 2009), which finds a measured 5-year-mean imbalance of 6.5 W/m2 (Loeb et al., 2009). Because this result is implausible, instrumentation calibration factors were introduced to reduce the imbalance to the imbalance suggested by climate models, 0.85 W/m2 (Loeb et al., 2009)."
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/notyet/submitted_Hansen_etal.pdf
As you well know, the satellite data does not cover the poles, so you are just spewing pure bullshit when you discredit the fact that the satellite data, even from deniers, shows warming for the last decade that you what honest people to lie about and "admit that temperatures have been cooling for at least the last decade."
I've posted the proof over a dozen times when you've asked for it, but each time you've cut and run from the thread only to post the above highlighted lie in a new thread.
The direct link to the UAH site seems to be down, but here is the UAH data mirrored on the denier site JunkScience.
JunkScience.com's "Global Warming" at a glance
[FONT=arial, verdana, helvetica]UAH Global Temperature Report for the current month (The University of Alabama in Huntsville
[/FONT][FONT=arial, verdana, helvetica]Temperature Variation From Average:
Lower Troposphere:
Global:
[FONT=arial, verdana, helvetica]November 2011: +0.12 °C[/FONT]
Northern Hemisphere: +0.08 °C
Southern Hemisphere: +0.17 °C[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, verdana, helvetica]Peak recorded anomaly:
February, 1998: +0.66 °C
Current relative to peak recorded: -0.54 °C [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, verdana, helvetica]DECADAL TREND:
Global: +0.14 °C
Northern Hemisphere: +0.20 °C
Southern Hemisphere: +0.08 °C [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, verdana, helvetica]Last update: December 17, 2011[/FONT]
It doesn't matter who the CON$ervative is, once they sink their teeth into a lie, they never let go no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary.As you well know, the satellite data does not cover the poles, so you are just spewing pure bullshit when you discredit the fact that the satellite data, even from deniers, shows warming for the last decade that you what honest people to lie about and "admit that temperatures have been cooling for at least the last decade."
The main problem with your argument is that the satellite data does not show warming over the last decade. At best it shows temperatures have been flat. In reality it shows a slight degree of cooling.
As you well know, the satellite data does not cover the poles, so you are just spewing pure bullshit when you discredit the fact that the satellite data, even from deniers, shows warming for the last decade that you what honest people to lie about and "admit that temperatures have been cooling for at least the last decade."
I've posted the proof over a dozen times when you've asked for it, but each time you've cut and run from the thread only to post the above highlighted lie in a new thread.
The main problem with your argument is that the satellite data does not show warming over the last decade. At best it shows temperatures have been flat. In reality it shows a slight degree of cooling.
Then why did you ask honest people to lie about it cooling for "at least the last decade?"actually I think the point of the OP is to ask climate scientists to stop manipulating data to distort and exaggerate conclusions into preordained statements of catastrophic AGW.
Even data from deniers Christy and Spencer, who actually got caught manipulating the data to distort and exaggerate a conclusion of global cooling while it was actually warming, shows the globe has warmed [FONT=arial, verdana, helvetica]+0.14 °C this last decade.[/FONT]
even the BEST data, which havent gone through peer review yet to see if the way they cut up data adds a spurious warming, shows that 1/3 of the locations show cooling. the global average temp uses a lot of areas like the arctic which has madeup and infilled data that say what the people running the data sets want them to say. the whole thing depends on the weightings of different areas, and the adjustments made to the raw data.
you keep saying Christie and Spencer were caught manipulating data yet you never show any proof. their data set and methods are much more open and responsive to criticisms than most of the others yet you seem to have a hard on against them while holding credulous high esteem for other data sets that hide their data and methodologies so that it is difficult to find and correct mistakes.
Edthecynic is a left wing partisan hack, and Ian, you have pretty much pwned him. However, he will never EVER turn away from the Church of Al Gore no matter what. You are wasting your time.
