UAH temperatures for November

[ScienceRocks]

I think we can all agree that the earth has warmed since 1800 getting us out of a little ice age. That is all we know...Longer growing seasons with less land ice.

 

[edthecynic]

Well, Si, your peer group, Westwall, mdn, and Kookybill, all are stating that the temperatures are now declining. Doesn't seem to be the case.

Given your consistent lack of comprehension - and misrepresentation - of my position and your calling Spencer a "warming skeptic", I have to ask: Are you sure they are?

There is no denying that Spencer is a skeptic to the point of cooking the satellite data to make the globe appear colder than it actually is, which is why he is the official climatologist for Stuttering LimpTard, so it seems Old Rocks is misrepresenting nothing and no one.
Try again.

August 9, 2007
RUSH: I got a note here from our official climatologist Roy Spencer, University of Alabama at Huntsville.* He is a genuine scientist and has been doing some research and he released the research today in Geophysical Research Letters.*

Mar 20, 2008
RUSH: As you know, the official climatologist of this program is Dr. Roy Spencer at the University of Alabama at Huntsville

February 2, 2010
RUSH:* I just got a flash from our official climatologist here at the EIB Network, Dr. Roy Spencer (University of Alabama-Huntsville)

 

[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

I've lost track of how many times you've posted this deliberately misleading lie by half truth and how many times I've exposed your deliberate deception only to find you repeating the same deception in another thread. Well at least you've finally added the ellipsis to the quote to indicate that something was left out! That's some progress at least!

With the whole quote it is clear that he is saying that there was WARMING during the period but the time was not long enough to be called "statistically-significant," not that the temperature trend was not warming as you try to imply.

But thank you for being an example of the inherent dishonesty of CON$.

From your own link:

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

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.

 

[Si modo]

Well, Si, your peer group, Westwall, mdn, and Kookybill, all are stating that the temperatures are now declining. Doesn't seem to be the case.

Given your consistent lack of comprehension - and misrepresentation - of my position and your calling Spencer a "warming skeptic", I have to ask: Are you sure they are?

There is no denying that Spencer is a skeptic to the point of cooking the satellite data to make the globe appear colder than it actually is, which is why he is the official climatologist for Stuttering LimpTard, so it seems Old Rocks is misrepresenting nothing and no one.
Try again.

August 9, 2007
RUSH: I got a note here from our official climatologist Roy Spencer, University of Alabama at Huntsville.* He is a genuine scientist and has been doing some research and he released the research today in Geophysical Research Letters.*

Mar 20, 2008
RUSH: As you know, the official climatologist of this program is Dr. Roy Spencer at the University of Alabama at Huntsville

February 2, 2010
RUSH:* I just got a flash from our official climatologist here at the EIB Network, Dr. Roy Spencer (University of Alabama-Huntsville)

My God, are you a colossal idiot. Simply amazing.

 

[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

I've lost track of how many times you've posted this deliberately misleading lie by half truth and how many times I've exposed your deliberate deception only to find you repeating the same deception in another thread. Well at least you've finally added the ellipsis to the quote to indicate that something was left out! That's some progress at least!

With the whole quote it is clear that he is saying that there was WARMING during the period but the time was not long enough to be called "statistically-significant," not that the temperature trend was not warming as you try to imply.

But thank you for being an example of the inherent dishonesty of CON$.

From your own link:

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

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.

1. The Warmers cannot point to a single repeatable laboratory experiment that shows how a 200PPM increase in CO2 raises temperature.

2. You continue to be totally ignorant of the meaning of "Statistically significant" It is a fundamental threshold that would give weight to your bizarroland theory -- and you fail to pass it.

 

[skookerasbil]

[ QUOTE=Old Rocks;3055228]Dr. Spencer is a warming skeptic, yet his figures and graphs show a continued and strong warming. Look at the 13 month running mean. It will surely surpass that of 1998.

Nov. 2010 UAH Gl
obal Temperature Update: +0.38 deg. C Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

The tropical tropospheric temperature anomaly for November continued its cooling trend, finally falling below the 1979-1998 average…but the global anomaly is still falling slowly:+0.38 deg. C for October November, 2010.

2010 is now in a dead heat with 1998 for warmest year, with the following averages through November:

1998 +0.538
2010 +0.526

December will determine the outcome, but remember that the difference between the two years is not statistically significant.

Spencer is a scientist who has been heavily involved in measuring earth temps for decades. He just produces data, he doesnt make flaky claims about disaster. For this he gets called a skeptic by people like Old Rocks. There are a few of his lectures on YouTube, and you could do worse to pick up the basics of satellite measurements by watching them. As with just about every area of AGW, his area of expertise lays bare the notion that the science is 'settled' or that CO2 is the only factor that is important.

Nobody has said that CO2 is the only factor. All the evidence does point to GHGs being the primary factory, however. And we are producing those GHGs.

Now Spencer thinks that there are more natural factors resposible for the change than manmade factors. Most other scientists involved in the field think otherwise.

I see two main factors involved here. One is the amount of energy we recieve from our sun, the other is the amount retained. For the last 30 years there is no evidence that the amount of energy has increased, in fact, as measured, we see an insignificant decrease in the TSI. What about heat retention? Well, according to the physicists, the best way to increase heat retention on earth is to add GHGs to the atmosphere. Have we done that? Absolutely. A 40% increase in CO2, more than a 150% increase in CH4. And a regular stew of industrial GHGs, some of which are thousands of times as affective as CO2.

Are we seeing predicted results? Yes. From the ice caps to the glaciers, we are losing ice at an accelerating rate. We are seeing unusual weather patterns that are playing havoc with agriculture from Australia, to Pakistan and Russia. We have seen the predicted increase in precipitation events.

Will we actually heed the warning signs, and start reducing emissions? NO. That would reduce too many corperations profits, and force people to do things differantly than they have for the past century. They will not do that, even when doing so would be to their advantage.[/QUOTE]

















Thats right asshole..........the green mega-special interests have LOST with a capital L. Oil and coal win...........
Oh....ps Rocks.......did you see? They couldnt get out of Cancun fast enough as the summit ended today!!!
Ammusing as shit..............

 

[skookerasbil]

ps.......check this shit out. Below is a spy shot of Old Rocks taking out his emergency ark for its maiden voyage..............

s0n....couldnt you have at least invested in some kind of conventional steering system??

 

[The Infidel]

Dr. Spencer is a warming skeptic, yet his figures and graphs show a continued and strong warming. Look at the 13 month running mean. It will surely surpass that of 1998.

Nov. 2010 UAH Global Temperature Update: +0.38 deg. C Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

The tropical tropospheric temperature anomaly for November continued its cooling trend, finally falling below the 1979-1998 average…but the global anomaly is still falling slowly:+0.38 deg. C for October November, 2010.

2010 is now in a dead heat with 1998 for warmest year, with the following averages through November:

1998 +0.538
2010 +0.526

December will determine the outcome, but remember that the difference between the two years is not statistically significant.

Meanwhile at the global warming conference in Cancu....

Record lows in Cancun 3 days in a row


Hey Old Rocks.....

 

[The Infidel]

Hey Elvis, ol' turd. A whole bunch of negs in a row, but when I click on yours, I cannot return the favor. Nice system there, old boy. Not that I give a damn. Just neg rep until there is nothing left, doesn't matter in the least to me.

Good to know....

 

[Trajan]

Well, Si, your peer group, Westwall, mdn, and Kookybill, all are stating that the temperatures are now declining. Doesn't seem to be the case.

so they pencil whipped the past figures for years by counting temps from meters in urban areas that they knew were inordinately high and the ones they didn't count in Siberia etc. and other "inaccessible' or not "statistically important" monitoring stations and now this....means what exactly?

 

[edthecynic]

Spencer is a scientist who has been heavily involved in measuring earth temps for decades. He just produces data, he doesnt make flaky claims about disaster. For this he gets called a skeptic by people like Old Rocks. There are a few of his lectures on YouTube, and you could do worse to pick up the basics of satellite measurements by watching them. As with just about every area of AGW, his area of expertise lays bare the notion that the science is 'settled' or that CO2 is the only factor that is important.

Spencer is a denier who has been heavily involved in manipulating earth temps for decades. He just produces cooked data, he makes flaky claims about local temps to deny global warming.

December 8, 2010
RUSH: Our official climatologist, Dr. Roy Spencer, University of Alabama at Huntsville is in Cancun, in Mexico. There's a global warming, United Nations conference going on there, and he is sending in dispatch reports to me every day. I got two notes from him today. He says it's the fourth record low in a row in Cancun this morning, 50 degrees. Ft. Lauderdale broke a 136-year-old record for cold last night or the night before. There is a freeze warning for south Florida because of crops. A bunch of beans were lost, have been lost because of cold weather.

And Lord Monckton is over in Cancun, and Dr. Spencer has talked to Lord Monckton. Lord Monckton is a big time realist, "denier." There is no man-made global warming. There might not be any global warming, period.

 

[Si modo]

Spencer is a scientist who has been heavily involved in measuring earth temps for decades. He just produces data, he doesnt make flaky claims about disaster. For this he gets called a skeptic by people like Old Rocks. There are a few of his lectures on YouTube, and you could do worse to pick up the basics of satellite measurements by watching them. As with just about every area of AGW, his area of expertise lays bare the notion that the science is 'settled' or that CO2 is the only factor that is important.

Spencer is a denier who has been heavily involved in manipulating earth temps for decades. He just produces cooked data, he makes make flaky claims about local temps to deny global warming.

December 8, 2010
RUSH: Our official climatologist, Dr. Roy Spencer, University of Alabama at Huntsville is in Cancun, in Mexico. There's a global warming, United Nations conference going on there, and he is sending in dispatch reports to me every day. I got two notes from him today. He says it's the fourth record low in a row in Cancun this morning, 50 degrees. Ft. Lauderdale broke a 136-year-old record for cold last night or the night before. There is a freeze warning for south Florida because of crops. A bunch of beans were lost, have been lost because of cold weather.

And Lord Monckton is over in Cancun, and Dr. Spencer has talked to Lord Monckton. Lord Monckton is a big time realist, "denier." There is no man-made global warming. There might not be any global warming, period.

And, you post your idiocy, again? It's stunning.

 

[IanC]

Spencer is a scientist who has been heavily involved in measuring earth temps for decades. He just produces data, he doesnt make flaky claims about disaster. For this he gets called a skeptic by people like Old Rocks. There are a few of his lectures on YouTube, and you could do worse to pick up the basics of satellite measurements by watching them. As with just about every area of AGW, his area of expertise lays bare the notion that the science is 'settled' or that CO2 is the only factor that is important.

Spencer is a denier who has been heavily involved in manipulating earth temps for decades. He just produces cooked data, he makes flaky claims about local temps to deny global warming.

December 8, 2010
RUSH: Our official climatologist, Dr. Roy Spencer, University of Alabama at Huntsville is in Cancun, in Mexico. There's a global warming, United Nations conference going on there, and he is sending in dispatch reports to me every day. I got two notes from him today. He says it's the fourth record low in a row in Cancun this morning, 50 degrees. Ft. Lauderdale broke a 136-year-old record for cold last night or the night before. There is a freeze warning for south Florida because of crops. A bunch of beans were lost, have been lost because of cold weather.

And Lord Monckton is over in Cancun, and Dr. Spencer has talked to Lord Monckton. Lord Monckton is a big time realist, "denier." There is no man-made global warming. There might not be any global warming, period.

it sounds to me that you hate Spencer simply because Rush Limbaugh likes him. why don't you link up some evidence that "Spencer is a denier who has been heavily involved in manipulating earth temps for decades. He just produces cooked data, he makes flaky claims about local temps to deny global warming."?

 

[IanC]

Nobody has said that CO2 is the only factor. All the evidence does point to GHGs being the primary factory, however. And we are producing those GHGs.

Now Spencer thinks that there are more natural factors resposible for the change than manmade factors. Most other scientists involved in the field think otherwise.

I see two main factors involved here. One is the amount of energy we recieve from our sun, the other is the amount retained. For the last 30 years there is no evidence that the amount of energy has increased, in fact, as measured, we see an insignificant decrease in the TSI. What about heat retention? Well, according to the physicists, the best way to increase heat retention on earth is to add GHGs to the atmosphere. Have we done that? Absolutely. A 40% increase in CO2, more than a 150% increase in CH4. And a regular stew of industrial GHGs, some of which are thousands of times as affective as CO2.

Are we seeing predicted results? Yes. From the ice caps to the glaciers, we are losing ice at an accelerating rate. We are seeing unusual weather patterns that are playing havoc with agriculture from Australia, to Pakistan and Russia. We have seen the predicted increase in precipitation events.

Will we actually heed the warning signs, and start reducing emissions? NO. That would reduce too many corperations profits, and force people to do things differantly than they have for the past century. They will not do that, even when doing so would be to their advantage.

Actually, the preponderance of evidence shows that water, water vapour and clouds have the largest effect on heat transfers. The AGW crowd builds global climate models with simplistic cloud and current effects, fine tunes with any amount of 'aerosols' needed to get the final temp within range and then calls it a victory. But the models don't describe reality, its cold where it should be hot and vice versa, there is no overshoot correction; they do a poor job of projecting the past so why should we give them any credance with predictions for the future? Until there is much more improvement in our understanding natural factors, clouds especially, I don't think we can pinpoint CO2's effect beyond the theoretical (and trivial) one degree warming for a doubling of CO2 concentration.

We see the problem from two different perspectives. You see warming as principally caused by CO2 with some natural influence, I see it as naturally caused with some influence by CO2. Historical evidence shows that the climate goes through warming and cooling, with the last warm phase just as warm as today, perhaps even warmer because proxy data tend to smooth out the measurements and lose the extremes.

Because you have bought into the AGW alarmist paradigm you use confirmation bias to see everything as support for AGW. Do you really think that glaciers and ice caps know the difference between warming caused by nature compared to warming caused by man? Droughts and floods have been happening for a lot longer than man has been on the planet, and will be here after we're gone.

You know, we are doing things differently and reducing the rate of emissions. Anyone who knows what pulp mills and manufacturing plants looked like 50 years ago realizes there have been huge improvements, with more to come in the future. It is called progress. Crippling our way of life for practically non-existent benefits in CO2 abatement are foolish. It is much better to focus on adaptation if we come to a point where it is needed.

 

[IanC]

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

I've lost track of how many times you've posted this deliberately misleading lie by half truth and how many times I've exposed your deliberate deception only to find you repeating the same deception in another thread. Well at least you've finally added the ellipsis to the quote to indicate that something was left out! That's some progress at least!

With the whole quote it is clear that he is saying that there was WARMING during the period but the time was not long enough to be called "statistically-significant," not that the temperature trend was not warming as you try to imply.

But thank you for being an example of the inherent dishonesty of CON$.

From your own link:

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

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.

obviously you don't understand statistics. do you think it is significant at a 90% level? 75%? 50%?

on the other hand- how big does the trend have to be before we consider it dangerous or catastrophic? 0.05, 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 5.0, 10.0? (all numbers are per century, you can decide whether you prefer F or C)

 

[Si modo]

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

I've lost track of how many times you've posted this deliberately misleading lie by half truth and how many times I've exposed your deliberate deception only to find you repeating the same deception in another thread. Well at least you've finally added the ellipsis to the quote to indicate that something was left out! That's some progress at least!

With the whole quote it is clear that he is saying that there was WARMING during the period but the time was not long enough to be called "statistically-significant," not that the temperature trend was not warming as you try to imply.

But thank you for being an example of the inherent dishonesty of CON$.

From your own link:

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

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.

obviously you don't understand statistics. do you think it is significant at a 90% level? 75%? 50%?

on the other hand- how big does the trend have to be before we consider it dangerous or catastrophic? 0.05, 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 5.0, 10.0? (all numbers are per century, you can decide whether you prefer F or C)