The new normal.....rising temperatures

[Bern80]

Now here you are, Bern, a paper from the National Academy of Sciences. Of course we know them thar all pointy headed pinko scientists don't know nuthin' at all, now don't we, Bernie Boy.

Global temperature change ? PNAS

Global temperature change
James Hansen*,†,‡, Makiko Sato*,†, Reto Ruedy*,§, Ken Lo*,§, David W. Lea¶, and Martin Medina-Elizade¶
+ Author Affiliations

*National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies,
†Columbia University Earth Institute, and
§Sigma Space Partners, Inc., 2880 Broadway, New York, NY 10025; and
¶Department of Earth Science, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106
Contributed by James Hansen, July 31, 2006

Next SectionAbstract
Global surface temperature has increased ≈0.2°C per decade in the past 30 years, similar to the warming rate predicted in the 1980s in initial global climate model simulations with transient greenhouse gas changes. Warming is larger in the Western Equatorial Pacific than in the Eastern Equatorial Pacific over the past century, and we suggest that the increased West–East temperature gradient may have increased the likelihood of strong El Niños, such as those of 1983 and 1998. Comparison of measured sea surface temperatures in the Western Pacific with paleoclimate data suggests that this critical ocean region, and probably the planet as a whole, is approximately as warm now as at the Holocene maximum and within ≈1°C of the maximum temperature of the past million years. We conclude that global warming of more than ≈1°C, relative to 2000, will constitute “dangerous” climate change as judged from likely effects on sea level and extermination of species.

climate change El Niños global warming sea level species extinctions
Global temperature is a popular metric for summarizing the state of global climate. Climate effects are felt locally, but the global distribution of climate response to many global climate forcings is reasonably congruent in climate models (1), suggesting that the global metric is surprisingly useful. We will argue further, consistent with earlier discussion (2, 3), that measurements in the Western Pacific and Indian Oceans provide a good indication of global temperature change.

We first update our analysis of surface temperature change based on instrumental data and compare observed temperature change with predictions of global climate change made in the 1980s. We then examine current temperature anomalies in the tropical Pacific Ocean and discuss their possible significance. Finally, we compare paleoclimate and recent data, using the Earth's history to estimate the magnitude of global warming that is likely to constitute dangerous human-made climate change.

So even though most of the data we are hearing about says there has NOT been any warming over the last 15 years or so. These guys say surface temperature recordings are going up. Rocks act your fucking age and get some common sense. Ground based readngs are going to be about the most susceptible to cold/heat interference than any other data source out there. Maybe that's why you true believers lean on it so heavily because it is the most likely data source to show the results you want. The best to use would be satellite data.

 

[Old Rocks]

Bernie, old boy, show me that data? You cannot because you are knowingly repeating a lie. The ground based data does not vary significantly from the satellite data.

I gave you referances from real scientific sources, you give me yap-yap in return. Come on, surely you have some scientific sources for your point of view? Something from NAS, NASA, USGS, NOAA, or the Royal Society? How about peer reviewed journals like Science or Nature?

Bernie baby, you cannot give me anything in return but squalid talking points of the wingnut Conservatives, because that is all you have.

 

[Old Rocks]

Why yes it is winter in the southern hemisphere. But doesn't that mean its summer here....slick? And the year to year anomolies are anecdotal and mean nothing by themselves. As does the cold. It means nothing on a long term climate scale. That is the point we are making. For the warmists any temperature "event" is a sign of GW, whether it is a hot record or a cold record. We say the day to day temps mean nothing in the short term (2-3 decades) because the climate is cyclical.

Warming in Last 50 Years Predicted by Natural Climate Cycles Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

You do know that Stuttering LimpTard's climatologist Spencer and his partner in crime Christy at the UAH have no credibility. They were caught deliberately using the OPPOSITE sign to correct for diurnal satellite drift in order to create data used by deniers to claim global cooling.

One very interesting question in the comments is very revealing in how Spencer operates. I suspect he did shift the training window around and it didn't reproduce the record accurately because any competent scientist would have done that to verify his assumptions, and it also explains why he has not invested the mere couple of hours it would take to do it in the ample amount of time he has had since the excellent question was asked.

Dave Springer says:
June 6, 2010 at 5:40 PM
If you shift the training window around does it still reproduce the rest of the record accurately?

Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. says:
June 7, 2010 at 6:36 AM
I haven’t looked at that…this was the result of a couple of hours of work on the weekend, and I didn’t mean to start a whole new research effort. Just get people thinking.

Yes I did know that. It seems a sad state of affairs that I can think of very few climateologists who DON'T have ethical baggage. Just so you know the .12 degree C that Jones mentions is so trivial as to be statistically meaningless. No true statistician would dare use it as its Confidence Interval is basically nonexistent.

So our faux geologist claims climatologists do not have ethics

God, Walleyes, you increasingly present yourself a one dumb shit.

Dr. Spencer may not believe in AGW, but he is being forced to make a record of it by his position. And he cannot maintain that position if he makes any more 'mistakes' like reversing positive and negative signs.

The whole of the scientific research establishment is confirming AGW on a daily basis. Only the politically and ideologically blinded are in denial.

 

[edthecynic]

Now here you are, Bern, a paper from the National Academy of Sciences. Of course we know them thar all pointy headed pinko scientists don't know nuthin' at all, now don't we, Bernie Boy.

Global temperature change ? PNAS

Global temperature change
James Hansen*,†,‡, Makiko Sato*,†, Reto Ruedy*,§, Ken Lo*,§, David W. Lea¶, and Martin Medina-Elizade¶
+ Author Affiliations

*National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies,
†Columbia University Earth Institute, and
§Sigma Space Partners, Inc., 2880 Broadway, New York, NY 10025; and
¶Department of Earth Science, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106
Contributed by James Hansen, July 31, 2006

Next SectionAbstract
Global surface temperature has increased ≈0.2°C per decade in the past 30 years, similar to the warming rate predicted in the 1980s in initial global climate model simulations with transient greenhouse gas changes. Warming is larger in the Western Equatorial Pacific than in the Eastern Equatorial Pacific over the past century, and we suggest that the increased West–East temperature gradient may have increased the likelihood of strong El Niños, such as those of 1983 and 1998. Comparison of measured sea surface temperatures in the Western Pacific with paleoclimate data suggests that this critical ocean region, and probably the planet as a whole, is approximately as warm now as at the Holocene maximum and within ≈1°C of the maximum temperature of the past million years. We conclude that global warming of more than ≈1°C, relative to 2000, will constitute “dangerous” climate change as judged from likely effects on sea level and extermination of species.

climate change El Niños global warming sea level species extinctions
Global temperature is a popular metric for summarizing the state of global climate. Climate effects are felt locally, but the global distribution of climate response to many global climate forcings is reasonably congruent in climate models (1), suggesting that the global metric is surprisingly useful. We will argue further, consistent with earlier discussion (2, 3), that measurements in the Western Pacific and Indian Oceans provide a good indication of global temperature change.

We first update our analysis of surface temperature change based on instrumental data and compare observed temperature change with predictions of global climate change made in the 1980s. We then examine current temperature anomalies in the tropical Pacific Ocean and discuss their possible significance. Finally, we compare paleoclimate and recent data, using the Earth's history to estimate the magnitude of global warming that is likely to constitute dangerous human-made climate change.

So even though most of the data we are hearing about says there has NOT been any warming over the last 15 years or so. These guys say surface temperature recordings are going up. Rocks act your fucking age and get some common sense. Ground based readngs are going to be about the most susceptible to cold/heat interference than any other data source out there. Maybe that's why you true believers lean on it so heavily because it is the most likely data source to show the results you want. The best to use would be satellite data.

Actually all the data says we have been WARMING at a rate of +.12 degrees C or +.22 degrees F per decade for the last 15 years. And not just from ground based stations. Troposphere temp measurements by satellites are almost identical to the ground measurements.

 

[westwall]

You do know that Stuttering LimpTard's climatologist Spencer and his partner in crime Christy at the UAH have no credibility. They were caught deliberately using the OPPOSITE sign to correct for diurnal satellite drift in order to create data used by deniers to claim global cooling.

One very interesting question in the comments is very revealing in how Spencer operates. I suspect he did shift the training window around and it didn't reproduce the record accurately because any competent scientist would have done that to verify his assumptions, and it also explains why he has not invested the mere couple of hours it would take to do it in the ample amount of time he has had since the excellent question was asked.

Yes I did know that. It seems a sad state of affairs that I can think of very few climateologists who DON'T have ethical baggage. Just so you know the .12 degree C that Jones mentions is so trivial as to be statistically meaningless. No true statistician would dare use it as its Confidence Interval is basically nonexistent.

So our faux geologist claims climatologists do not have ethics

God, Walleyes, you increasingly present yourself a one dumb shit.

Dr. Spencer may not believe in AGW, but he is being forced to make a record of it by his position. And he cannot maintain that position if he makes any more 'mistakes' like reversing positive and negative signs.

The whole of the scientific research establishment is confirming AGW on a daily basis. Only the politically and ideologically blinded are in denial.

Uhhhh I kind of doubt it there old fraud. Climatologists have confirmed one thing....that they can manufacture data like no one else. Climatologists use surface weather stations in preferance to all other sources and the only way you could get the hot temperatures that have been claimed in the NE is by using TWO stations near airports that were the only TWO sources that read the temperatures that were reported to the media.

They regularly "average" temperatures for a 1200 kilometer section of Canada where they have dropped the existing weather stations. The one station they are still using in that area is in a town thus maximising the UHI effect.

So how long have you worked for Evraz? I think you are feeling so guilty that you work in a notoriously polluting field that you feel compelled to absolve your sins against the Earth by following every other enviro religion out there. How sad.

 

[westwall]

Now here you are, Bern, a paper from the National Academy of Sciences. Of course we know them thar all pointy headed pinko scientists don't know nuthin' at all, now don't we, Bernie Boy.

Global temperature change ? PNAS

Global temperature change
James Hansen*,†,‡, Makiko Sato*,†, Reto Ruedy*,§, Ken Lo*,§, David W. Lea¶, and Martin Medina-Elizade¶
+ Author Affiliations

*National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies,
†Columbia University Earth Institute, and
§Sigma Space Partners, Inc., 2880 Broadway, New York, NY 10025; and
¶Department of Earth Science, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106
Contributed by James Hansen, July 31, 2006

Next SectionAbstract
Global surface temperature has increased ≈0.2°C per decade in the past 30 years, similar to the warming rate predicted in the 1980s in initial global climate model simulations with transient greenhouse gas changes. Warming is larger in the Western Equatorial Pacific than in the Eastern Equatorial Pacific over the past century, and we suggest that the increased West–East temperature gradient may have increased the likelihood of strong El Niños, such as those of 1983 and 1998. Comparison of measured sea surface temperatures in the Western Pacific with paleoclimate data suggests that this critical ocean region, and probably the planet as a whole, is approximately as warm now as at the Holocene maximum and within ≈1°C of the maximum temperature of the past million years. We conclude that global warming of more than ≈1°C, relative to 2000, will constitute “dangerous” climate change as judged from likely effects on sea level and extermination of species.

climate change El Niños global warming sea level species extinctions
Global temperature is a popular metric for summarizing the state of global climate. Climate effects are felt locally, but the global distribution of climate response to many global climate forcings is reasonably congruent in climate models (1), suggesting that the global metric is surprisingly useful. We will argue further, consistent with earlier discussion (2, 3), that measurements in the Western Pacific and Indian Oceans provide a good indication of global temperature change.

We first update our analysis of surface temperature change based on instrumental data and compare observed temperature change with predictions of global climate change made in the 1980s. We then examine current temperature anomalies in the tropical Pacific Ocean and discuss their possible significance. Finally, we compare paleoclimate and recent data, using the Earth's history to estimate the magnitude of global warming that is likely to constitute dangerous human-made climate change.

So even though most of the data we are hearing about says there has NOT been any warming over the last 15 years or so. These guys say surface temperature recordings are going up. Rocks act your fucking age and get some common sense. Ground based readngs are going to be about the most susceptible to cold/heat interference than any other data source out there. Maybe that's why you true believers lean on it so heavily because it is the most likely data source to show the results you want. The best to use would be satellite data.

Actually all the data says we have been WARMING at a rate of +.12 degrees C or +.22 degrees F per decade for the last 15 years. And not just from ground based stations. Troposphere temp measurements by satellites are almost identical to the ground measurements.

I'll see your chart and raise it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Phil Jones: Yes...

BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

 

[edthecynic]

Yes I did know that. It seems a sad state of affairs that I can think of very few climateologists who DON'T have ethical baggage. Just so you know the .12 degree C that Jones mentions is so trivial as to be statistically meaningless. No true statistician would dare use it as its Confidence Interval is basically nonexistent.

So our faux geologist claims climatologists do not have ethics

God, Walleyes, you increasingly present yourself a one dumb shit.

Dr. Spencer may not believe in AGW, but he is being forced to make a record of it by his position. And he cannot maintain that position if he makes any more 'mistakes' like reversing positive and negative signs.

The whole of the scientific research establishment is confirming AGW on a daily basis. Only the politically and ideologically blinded are in denial.

Uhhhh I kind of doubt it there old fraud. Climatologists have confirmed one thing....that they can manufacture data like no one else. Climatologists use surface weather stations in preferance to all other sources and the only way you could get the hot temperatures that have been claimed in the NE is by using TWO stations near airports that were the only TWO sources that read the temperatures that were reported to the media.

They regularly "average" temperatures for a 1200 kilometer section of Canada where they have dropped the existing weather stations. The one station they are still using in that area is in a town thus maximising the UHI effect.

So how long have you worked for Evraz? I think you are feeling so guilty that you work in a notoriously polluting field that you feel compelled to absolve your sins against the Earth by following every other enviro religion out there. How sad.

Deniers Spencer and Christy get caught fabricating data and honest scientists get blamed. BRILLIANT.

Real scientists use ANOMALIES so if a station is near a heat source the AVERAGE the anomaly is measured against will be high and the anomaly will be accurate. That is why the ground station data matches the satellite data almost exactly.

Why don't you deniers set up your own ground stations and collect your own data if you really believe the scientific data is so corrupted???? I'll tell you why, you know it is quite accurate and you don't want to confirm it's accuracy!!! It's much easer to attack the data than to collect your own.

 

[Bern80]

Bernie, old boy, show me that data? You cannot because you are knowingly repeating a lie. The ground based data does not vary significantly from the satellite data.

I gave you referances from real scientific sources, you give me yap-yap in return. Come on, surely you have some scientific sources for your point of view? Something from NAS, NASA, USGS, NOAA, or the Royal Society? How about peer reviewed journals like Science or Nature?

Bernie baby, you cannot give me anything in return but squalid talking points of the wingnut Conservatives, because that is all you have.

A) I'm not a conservative, so you can drop that particular red herrring. Every post you make it amazes me how someone can reach your age and have so little maturity or integrity. I expect that from the likes of a teenager or maybe even someone in there low 20's, not a milwrighter in his 60's.

b) Show you what data?

Here's one showing ocean temps have declined or leveled off in the last 5 years

3-month global ocean heat content



I'm not arguing that there has been an increase in temperature over time. What your old brain can't seem to get is that this debate is not about WHAT is happening. It is about WHY it is happening. And no one yet has come even close to making a direct link between man's contribution to greenhouse gasses and temperature increase. You can spout about how much more this or that is in the atmosphere. Or post endless threads about this glacier or that melting. Until you can correlate man being the direct cause of any of it, you have NOTHING.

 

[edthecynic]

BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Phil Jones: Yes...

BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

Thank you for again proving me right that when CON$ are caught lying they just keep on lying and they are premeditated liars and not the stupid liars they pretend to be. I nailed you again on this very lie earlier in this very thread and here you are knowingly spewing it yet again.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2550204-post53.html

 

[Bern80]

So our faux geologist claims climatologists do not have ethics

God, Walleyes, you increasingly present yourself a one dumb shit.

Dr. Spencer may not believe in AGW, but he is being forced to make a record of it by his position. And he cannot maintain that position if he makes any more 'mistakes' like reversing positive and negative signs.

The whole of the scientific research establishment is confirming AGW on a daily basis. Only the politically and ideologically blinded are in denial.

Uhhhh I kind of doubt it there old fraud. Climatologists have confirmed one thing....that they can manufacture data like no one else. Climatologists use surface weather stations in preferance to all other sources and the only way you could get the hot temperatures that have been claimed in the NE is by using TWO stations near airports that were the only TWO sources that read the temperatures that were reported to the media.

They regularly "average" temperatures for a 1200 kilometer section of Canada where they have dropped the existing weather stations. The one station they are still using in that area is in a town thus maximising the UHI effect.

So how long have you worked for Evraz? I think you are feeling so guilty that you work in a notoriously polluting field that you feel compelled to absolve your sins against the Earth by following every other enviro religion out there. How sad.

Deniers Spencer and Christy get caught fabricating data and honest scientists get blamed. BRILLIANT.

Real scientists use ANOMALIES so if a station is near a heat source the AVERAGE the anomaly is measured against will be high and the anomaly will be accurate. That is why the ground station data matches the satellite data almost exactly.

Why don't you deniers set up your own ground stations and collect your own data if you really believe the scientific data is so corrupted???? I'll tell you why, you know it is quite accurate and you don't want to confirm it's accuracy!!! It's much easer to attack the data than to collect your own.

As a 'denier', agan I personally think WHAT is happenig is irrelevant. Maybe temps have gone up over 15 years, or maybe they haven't. The only instance in which we should even be considering lowering our standard of living on a global scale is if we can categorically confirm tha we are the reason it is happening and the main contributor to it.

 

[edthecynic]

So even though most of the data we are hearing about says there has NOT been any warming over the last 15 years or so. These guys say surface temperature recordings are going up. Rocks act your fucking age and get some common sense. Ground based readngs are going to be about the most susceptible to cold/heat interference than any other data source out there. Maybe that's why you true believers lean on it so heavily because it is the most likely data source to show the results you want. The best to use would be satellite data.

Actually all the data says we have been WARMING at a rate of +.12 degrees C or +.22 degrees F per decade for the last 15 years. And not just from ground based stations. Troposphere temp measurements by satellites are almost identical to the ground measurements.

I'll see your chart and raise it.

Again you cite the discredited Spencer and Christy of the UAH. They always try to mislead and your chart compares an outlier year 1998 to the present year. 1998 had the El Nino of the century to multiply the warming effect of the GHGs and 2010 has no such multiplier as well as the Sun's energy being lower and yet 2010 is almost equal to the freak year of 1998. The present decade is warmer than the previous decade which contains the outlier year 1998. How is that possible if it stopped warming 15 years ago??????????

 

[CrusaderFrank]

BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Phil Jones: Yes...

BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

Thank you for again proving me right that when CON$ are caught lying they just keep on lying and they are premeditated liars and not the stupid liars they pretend to be. I nailed you again on this very lie earlier in this very thread and here you are knowingly spewing it jet again.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2550204-post53.html

LOL. You nailed gunned your own ass

This is like Jesus saying, "Christianity...meh"

Phil Jones "...but not significant at the 95% significance level."

Oh, it's warming, we just can't say it is.

LOL

It's supposed to get warmer and warmer each decade that we add sensitive CO2, right? So after 7 decades, you'd think that it would no longer be "not significant at the 95% significance level."

 

[CrusaderFrank]

BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?

Phil "AGW" Jones: Yes

So typical of pathological CON$ervoFascist lying scum, you failed to tell the WHOLE truth. CON$ traditionally tell just enough truth and then shut up, effectively lying to your level of ignorance.

Now this in not the first time you've told this lie by half-truth, and I've already nailed you on it in another thread, again proving CON$ are premeditated liars and not the stupid liars they pretend to be.

Here is the WHOLE answer he gave!!!!

B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

JONES - Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

Are you retarded? Do you think posting the same wrong answer makes it right?

Yes, there's no Global Warming, but all my friends think there is and there's no science to support, so I'm going to go with "Yes, there's no Global Warming" as my final answer.

LOL

How do you translate that to Yes there's Global Warming? LOL

 

[edthecynic]

BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Phil Jones: Yes...

BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

Thank you for again proving me right that when CON$ are caught lying they just keep on lying and they are premeditated liars and not the stupid liars they pretend to be. I nailed you again on this very lie earlier in this very thread and here you are knowingly spewing it jet again.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2550204-post53.html

LOL. You nailed gunned your own ass

This is like Jesus saying, "Christianity...meh"

Phil Jones "...but not significant at the 95% significance level."

Oh, it's warming, we just can't say it is.

LOL

It's supposed to get warmer and warmer each decade that we add sensitive CO2, right? So after 7 decades, you'd think that it would no longer be "not significant at the 95% significance level."

Again, in typical dishonest CON$ervoFascist fashion, you lie by failing to tell the whole truth. In the WHOLE answer the warming did not meet the significance level because THE PERIOD OF TIME WAS NOT LONG ENOUGH, not that the warming was not enough.

B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

JONES - Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

 

[edthecynic]

BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?

Phil "AGW" Jones: Yes

So typical of pathological CON$ervoFascist lying scum, you failed to tell the WHOLE truth. CON$ traditionally tell just enough truth and then shut up, effectively lying to your level of ignorance.

Now this in not the first time you've told this lie by half-truth, and I've already nailed you on it in another thread, again proving CON$ are premeditated liars and not the stupid liars they pretend to be.

Here is the WHOLE answer he gave!!!!

B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

JONES - Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

Are you retarded? Do you think posting the same wrong answer makes it right?

Yes, there's no Global Warming, but all my friends think there is and there's no science to support, so I'm going to go with "Yes, there's no Global Warming" as my final answer.

LOL

How do you translate that to Yes there's Global Warming? LOL

God you are milking that dumb act to death!

How do you translate a POSITIVE value for the warming trend as NO global warming????

 

[Bern80]

Thank you for again proving me right that when CON$ are caught lying they just keep on lying and they are premeditated liars and not the stupid liars they pretend to be. I nailed you again on this very lie earlier in this very thread and here you are knowingly spewing it jet again.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2550204-post53.html

LOL. You nailed gunned your own ass

This is like Jesus saying, "Christianity...meh"

Phil Jones "...but not significant at the 95% significance level."

Oh, it's warming, we just can't say it is.

LOL

It's supposed to get warmer and warmer each decade that we add sensitive CO2, right? So after 7 decades, you'd think that it would no longer be "not significant at the 95% significance level."

Again, in typical dishonest CON$ervoFascist fashion, you lie by failing to tell the whole truth. In the WHOLE answer the warming did not meet the significance level because THE PERIOD OF TIME WAS NOT LONG ENOUGH, not that the warming was not enough.

B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

JONES - Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

Which means, smart guy, that without statistical signifance the warming observed over said short time could very well be completely meaningless.

 

[edthecynic]

LOL. You nailed gunned your own ass

This is like Jesus saying, "Christianity...meh"

Phil Jones "...but not significant at the 95% significance level."

Oh, it's warming, we just can't say it is.

LOL

It's supposed to get warmer and warmer each decade that we add sensitive CO2, right? So after 7 decades, you'd think that it would no longer be "not significant at the 95% significance level."

Again, in typical dishonest CON$ervoFascist fashion, you lie by failing to tell the whole truth. In the WHOLE answer the warming did not meet the significance level because THE PERIOD OF TIME WAS NOT LONG ENOUGH, not that the warming was not enough.

B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

JONES - Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

Which means, smart guy, that without statistical signifance the warming observed over said short time could very well be completely meaningless.

But it still doesn't mean there has been NO global warming for the last 15 years as deniers falsely claim.

 

[westwall]

So our faux geologist claims climatologists do not have ethics

God, Walleyes, you increasingly present yourself a one dumb shit.

Dr. Spencer may not believe in AGW, but he is being forced to make a record of it by his position. And he cannot maintain that position if he makes any more 'mistakes' like reversing positive and negative signs.

The whole of the scientific research establishment is confirming AGW on a daily basis. Only the politically and ideologically blinded are in denial.

Uhhhh I kind of doubt it there old fraud. Climatologists have confirmed one thing....that they can manufacture data like no one else. Climatologists use surface weather stations in preferance to all other sources and the only way you could get the hot temperatures that have been claimed in the NE is by using TWO stations near airports that were the only TWO sources that read the temperatures that were reported to the media.

They regularly "average" temperatures for a 1200 kilometer section of Canada where they have dropped the existing weather stations. The one station they are still using in that area is in a town thus maximising the UHI effect.

So how long have you worked for Evraz? I think you are feeling so guilty that you work in a notoriously polluting field that you feel compelled to absolve your sins against the Earth by following every other enviro religion out there. How sad.

Deniers Spencer and Christy get caught fabricating data and honest scientists get blamed. BRILLIANT.

Real scientists use ANOMALIES so if a station is near a heat source the AVERAGE the anomaly is measured against will be high and the anomaly will be accurate. That is why the ground station data matches the satellite data almost exactly.

Why don't you deniers set up your own ground stations and collect your own data if you really believe the scientific data is so corrupted???? I'll tell you why, you know it is quite accurate and you don't want to confirm it's accuracy!!! It's much easer to attack the data than to collect your own.

Ed,

Before the alarmists got into the act there were 6000 weather stations in use across North America. Since they have come into power, so to speak, they have dropped more than 3,500 of them. The ones they have kept are those that are closest to urban areas. Below is a link to the Surface Stations website. May I suggest you read what they have to say. Confirm or refute what they have to say, and then when you have all of the facts report here what you have found.

Home

And this link is a compilation of 806 weather stations that were dropped in a SINGLE year. Why? The people who dropped them havn't said but the evidence seems to show that they were reading colder than was desired. So rather than have them screw up the "story" they were dropped to make the "story" easier to concoct.

Crooked climatologists drop 806 (cold?) weather stations in a single year | CLIMATEGATE

 

[edthecynic]

Uhhhh I kind of doubt it there old fraud. Climatologists have confirmed one thing....that they can manufacture data like no one else. Climatologists use surface weather stations in preferance to all other sources and the only way you could get the hot temperatures that have been claimed in the NE is by using TWO stations near airports that were the only TWO sources that read the temperatures that were reported to the media.

They regularly "average" temperatures for a 1200 kilometer section of Canada where they have dropped the existing weather stations. The one station they are still using in that area is in a town thus maximising the UHI effect.

So how long have you worked for Evraz? I think you are feeling so guilty that you work in a notoriously polluting field that you feel compelled to absolve your sins against the Earth by following every other enviro religion out there. How sad.

Deniers Spencer and Christy get caught fabricating data and honest scientists get blamed. BRILLIANT.

Real scientists use ANOMALIES so if a station is near a heat source the AVERAGE the anomaly is measured against will be high and the anomaly will be accurate. That is why the ground station data matches the satellite data almost exactly.

Why don't you deniers set up your own ground stations and collect your own data if you really believe the scientific data is so corrupted???? I'll tell you why, you know it is quite accurate and you don't want to confirm it's accuracy!!! It's much easer to attack the data than to collect your own.

Ed,

Before the alarmists got into the act there were 6000 weather stations in use across North America. Since they have come into power, so to speak, they have dropped more than 3,500 of them. The ones they have kept are those that are closest to urban areas. Below is a link to the Surface Stations website. May I suggest you read what they have to say. Confirm or refute what they have to say, and then when you have all of the facts report here what you have found.

Home

And this link is a compilation of 806 weather stations that were dropped in a SINGLE year. Why? The people who dropped them havn't said but the evidence seems to show that they were reading colder than was desired. So rather than have them screw up the "story" they were dropped to make the "story" easier to concoct.

Crooked climatologists drop 806 (cold?) weather stations in a single year | CLIMATEGATE

Again you are showing a complete lack of understanding of how ANOMALIES work. An urban heat island will raise the 30 year average for that individual station that the anomaly is measured against, thus the TREND shown by the anomaly will be accurate no matter how inaccurate the temp reading might be due to a heat source or the inaccuracy of the thermometer itself. That's why anomalies are used and not the thermometer reading directly. Again, the ground based stations match the satellite data almost exactly. These satellites are not vulnerable to urban heat islands.

Now if you deniers really believe that the stations were closed because the readings were colder than desired, then why don't you deniers man those closed stations and show some real proof??? You won't because you know the ground based data is quite accurate and so it is easier to create doubt if you don't collect your own data and thus have to confirm the accuracy of the data currently being used.