"Public losing trust in climate science!"

[westwall]

2014, warmest on record, neutral ENSO, 2015 may be a mild El Nino, and warmer yet. Dr. Curry is going to have considerable egg on her face.

Only because of data manipulation. The 1930's are still the record holder for most days over 100 degrees and by a huuuuuge margin. Funny how you anti science deniers always, and I mean always, ignore that FACT!

Walleyes, link that. Of course you will not because that was just the US. 2% of the world's surface. The real scientists have been researching what years were the warmest for a lot of years, and they certainly don't care what pretenders like you say,.

The 2% of the worlds surface that had the best temperature record set the world had at that time. Like all anti science deniers you said that the MWP was a localized event, those assertions have been proven wrong with over 100 peer reviewed papers showing that it was global. The same goes for the LIA, and the RWP and the HTM. Funny how that works. You idiots will publish a SINGLE weather station data point in a town and declare that is the temperature for the whole Arctic Circle.

A more anti science charlatan like you and yours would be hard to find.

 

[Billy_Bob]

SSo DDumb, from someone as stupid concerning basic science as you, the accusation of a tampered record is meaningless.

Old Fuck wit.... you love data tampering and doctored up data... admit it...

IF it dont come from a model and from the outlier adjusted up temp record you dont use it..

 

[CrusaderFrank]

2014, warmest on record, neutral ENSO, 2015 may be a mild El Nino, and warmer yet. Dr. Curry is going to have considerable egg on her face.

 

[Billy_Bob]

2014, warmest on record, neutral ENSO, 2015 may be a mild El Nino, and warmer yet. Dr. Curry is going to have considerable egg on her face.

Nope... Not even close, October was 24th in the 35 years of satellite temperature tracking. Only in the tampered with data is it any where near a record..

Another Old crock fail...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

No warming for 2 decades, er because of manmade global warming, just as predicted by the Retroactive AGWCult Model

 

[Billy_Bob]

No warming for 2 decades, er because of manmade global warming, just as predicted by the Retroactive AGWCult Model

Nov is coming in low by -7.1 deg F, a huge deviation to cool.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

No warming for 2 decades, er because of manmade global warming, just as predicted by the Retroactive AGWCult Model

Nov is coming in low by -7.1 deg F, a huge deviation to cool.

Er, because of AGW just as predicted by the Retroactive AGW Model, DENIER!!!

 

[mamooth]

Deniers, Plan A has failed for you. All of those years you spent fudging data, brainlessly parroting your cult conspiracy theories, whining, being laughed at by everyone ... all a failure. It's gotten you nothing. You've gone backwards. The whole world believes even more strongly that you're part of a liars' cult.

Did you have a Plan B? Let me point out that "Whine louder!" isn't really a Plan B, as it's the same as Plan A, and it's also not possible for you to whine any louder. Remember, Plan A is what got you into your current mess.

So many years of your dedicated work on behalf of the cult, all for nothing. That's got to sting. Don't you want revenge on the deniers' cult for playing you for such fools? Probably not. Breaking with the cult would require guts, after all. Just get back to the compound, so you can get your new instructions. More Plan A stuff, the standard data fudging and conspiracies. Your leaders know they can still get some use out of their Useful Idiots for a couple more years.

 

[westwall]

Deniers, Plan A has failed for you. All of those years you spent fudging data, brainlessly parroting your cult conspiracy theories, whining, being laughed at by everyone ... all a failure. It's gotten you nothing. You've gone backwards. The whole world believes even more strongly that you're part of a liars' cult.

Did you have a Plan B? Let me point out that "Whine louder!" isn't really a Plan B, as it's the same as Plan A, and it's also not possible for you to whine any louder. Remember, Plan A is what got you into your current mess.

So many years of your dedicated work on behalf of the cult, all for nothing. That's got to sting. Don't you want revenge on the deniers' cult for playing you for such fools? Probably not. Breaking with the cult would require guts, after all. Just get back to the compound, so you can get your new instructions. More Plan A stuff, the standard data fudging and conspiracies. Your leaders know they can still get some use out of their Useful Idiots for a couple more years.

Yes, you can see how utterly you have failed by the constant barrage of propaganda being spewed on the internet in a vain attempt to save your sorry asses. What's funny is the comments sections run 100 to 1 in favor of the sceptics. The anti science denier kooks, like you, are simply buried under factual comments while you idiots scream hysterically.

 

[Old Rocks]

2014, warmest on record, neutral ENSO, 2015 may be a mild El Nino, and warmer yet. Dr. Curry is going to have considerable egg on her face.

Only because of data manipulation. The 1930's are still the record holder for most days over 100 degrees and by a huuuuuge margin. Funny how you anti science deniers always, and I mean always, ignore that FACT!

Walleyes, link that. Of course you will not because that was just the US. 2% of the world's surface. The real scientists have been researching what years were the warmest for a lot of years, and they certainly don't care what pretenders like you say,.

The 2% of the worlds surface that had the best temperature record set the world had at that time. Like all anti science deniers you said that the MWP was a localized event, those assertions have been proven wrong with over 100 peer reviewed papers showing that it was global. The same goes for the LIA, and the RWP and the HTM. Funny how that works. You idiots will publish a SINGLE weather station data point in a town and declare that is the temperature for the whole Arctic Circle.

A more anti science charlatan like you and yours would be hard to find.

OK, post links to some of those 100 papers. In the meantime;

Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia

 

[Old Rocks]

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Abstract
A frequent conclusion based on study of individual records from the so-called Medieval Warm Period (∼1000-1300 A.D.) is that the present warmth of the 20 th century is not unusual and therefore cannot be taken as an indication of forced climate change from greenhouse gas emissions. This conclusion is not supported by published composites of Northern Hemisphere climate change, but the conclusions of such syntheses are often either ignored or challenged. In this paper, we revisit the controversy by incorporating additional time series not used in earlier hemispheric compilations. Another difference is that the present reconstruction uses records that are only 900–1000 years long, thereby, avoiding the potential problem of uncertainties introduced by using different numbers of records at different times. Despite clear evidence for Medieval warmth greater than present in some individual records, the new hemispheric composite supports the principal conclusion of earlier hemispheric reconstructions and, furthermore, indicates that maximum Medieval warmth was restricted to two-three 20–30 year intervals, with composite values during these times being only comparable to the mid-20 th century warm time interval. Failure to substantiate hemispheric warmth greater than the present consistently occurs in composites because there are significant offsets in timing of warmth in different regions; ignoring these offsets can lead to serious errors concerning inferences about the magnitude of Medieval warmth and its relevance to interpretation of late 20 th century warming.

 

[Old Rocks]

Medieval Warm Period Little Ice Age and 20th century temperature variability from Chesapeake Bay

Abstract
We present paleoclimate evidence for rapid (<100 years) shifts of ∼2–4 °C in Chesapeake Bay (CB) temperature ∼2100, 1600, 950, 650, 400 and 150 years before present (years BP) reconstructed from magnesium/calcium (Mg/Ca) paleothermometry. These include large temperature excursions during the Little Ice Age (∼1400–1900 AD) and the Medieval Warm Period (∼800–1300 AD) possibly related to changes in the strength of North Atlantic thermohaline circulation (THC). Evidence is presented for a long period of sustained regional and North Atlantic-wide warmth with low-amplitude temperature variability between ∼450 and 1000 AD. In addition to centennial-scale temperature shifts, the existence of numerous temperature maxima between 2200 and 250 years BP (average ∼70 years) suggests that multi-decadal processes typical of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) are an inherent feature of late Holocene climate. However, late 19th and 20th century temperature extremes in Chesapeake Bay associated with NAO climate variability exceeded those of the prior 2000 years, including the interval 450–1000 AD, by 2–3 °C, suggesting anomalous recent behavior of the climate system.

And again.

 

[Old Rocks]

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Annually resolved summer temperatures for the European Alps are described. The reconstruction covers the a.d. 755–2004 period and is based on 180 recent and historic larch [Larix decidua Mill.] density series. The regional curve standardization method was applied to preserve interannual to multicentennial variations in this high-elevation proxy dataset. Instrumental measurements from high- (low-) elevation grid boxes back to 1818 (1760) reveal strongest growth response to current-year June–September mean temperatures. The reconstruction correlates at 0.7 with high-elevation temperatures back to 1818, with a greater signal in the higher-frequency domain (r = 0.8). Low-elevation instrumental data back to 1760 agree with the reconstruction’s interannual variation, although a decoupling between (warmer) instrumental and (cooler) proxy data before ∼1840 is noted. This offset is larger than during any period of overlap with more recent high-elevation instrumental data, even though the proxy time series always contains some unexplained variance. The reconstruction indicates positive temperatures in the tenth and thirteenth century that resemble twentieth-century conditions, and are separated by a prolonged cooling from ∼1350 to 1700. Six of the 10 warmest decades over the 755–2004 period are recorded in the twentieth century. Maximum temperature amplitude over the past 1250 yr is estimated to be 3.1°C between the warmest (1940s) and coldest (1810s) decades. This estimate is, however, affected by the calibration with instrumental temperature data. Warm summers seem to coincide with periods of high solar activity, and cold summers vice versa. The record captures the full range of past European temperature variability, that is, the extreme years 1816 and 2003, warmth during medieval and recent times, and cold in between. Comparison with regional- and large-scale reconstructions reveals similar decadal to longer-term variability.

Your turn, Walleyes. Real peer reviewed articles, not Watts crap.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Old crock presents papers over three distinct areas which show LOCALIZED events. He then goes on to purport that because they are peer reviewed they are somehow superior, glossing over the fact that dissenting points of view were kept from publishing by his warmist agenda crowd for about 20 years. He claims the high road by subterfuge and lying.

And all three use adjusted data..

You go for the lies, yet the empirical observed evidence shows AGW a lie, you refuse to acknowledge.

When you gonna prove what 120ppm has done and show the work as to how you determined what is actual human caused and what is increase in natural vegetation due to natural cycles.

 

[Old Rocks]

Billy Boob, papers have to have a certain level of evidence and methodology before they can be published in peer reviewed literature. People like you are incapable of doing that.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Billy Boob, papers have to have a certain level of evidence and methodology before they can be published in peer reviewed literature. People like you are incapable of doing that.

Until they meet the AGW cult masters who have been blocking publishing.. Of course you will deny that but the Cliamtegate emails proved that it was indeed happening and it continues today. The only change now is that sites like WUWT are giving a predominant voice to those the cult shuns.. and those garbage papers by alarmists which are 'peer reviewed' are being shredded in moments after they are released and forcing those so called journal into disgrace by having to withdraw those alarmist drivels.

I laugh loudly each time the alarmists are smacked down with facts and your precious journals are shown frauds.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Sadly, it is harming all of science and all of our scientific institutions in the eyes of the public. Very sad.

 

[skookerasbil]

Only the k00ks will think that the public will see this as, "Uh-oh.......this global warming stuff is getting reeeeeeeeeal serious!!!"

This Could Be The Coldest Thanksgiving Since 1930 CBS Minnesota