Uh-ooohh Spaghettios... the US in ten year cooling trend?

[IanC]

Temperature Changes in Alaska Alaska Climate Research Center

Mr. Ian

So where is the CRN data? That is what we were discussing.

And your latest graph....sure looks like a step change in the late 70's rather than a steady increase. Was there a change in the ocean currents by any chance?

What happens here at at that point in time Ian?

you guys seem to have attention deficit disorder. the original discussion was the CRN temp system that needs no 'adjustments' but has only been operating since 2006. then OR piped up that Alaskan temps would turn the negative CRN trend to positive. no data has been produced for CRN Alaska yet or Hawaii), and I doubt that I will bother to look.

OR's graph of Alaskan temps really does look like a step change, (so does the satellite data at 98), so I opined that ocean currents might shed some light.

the PDO was discovered because salmon like cold water and they were moving away from the Alaskan fisheries in the 80's. I believe that the PDO has significant effect on Alaska's temps. eyeballing the PDO and Alaskan temp graphs seem to show a pretty strong correlation.

then crick comes along. he doesnt talk about CRN, Alaska, or the PDO. he wants to talk about the heavily adjusted global dataset from NASA GISS.

 

[Crick]

The jump in global temperature in the early 70's (the sharp end of the WW-II 'Hiatus') has been around since the records were first taken. It is not the product of any adjustments. I'm quite certain you knew that, which makes me doubly disappointed that you'd try to make people think that it was.

 

[Old Rocks]

Mr. Ian, your graph of the PDO is quite interesting. Last PDO we had colder years. The present PDO in your graph corresponds to 14 of the warmest years on record, of which our present year is certainly going to one of, if not the warmest year. The graph I presented showed a very strong warming in an area about half the size of the lower fortyeight.

 

[JFK_USA]

We never said that though. You did.

uh, no your side did:
credit old crocks:

From rainy Texas to scorching India this has been a month of strange weather around the world Fox News

WASHINGTON – Even for a world getting used to wild weather, May seems stuck on strange.

Torrential downpours in Texas that have whiplashed the region from drought to flooding. A heat wave that has killed more than 1,800 people in India. Record 91-degree readings in Alaska, of all places. A pair of top-of-the-scale typhoons in the Northwest Pacific. And a drought taking hold in the East.

"Mother Nature keeps throwing us crazy stuff," Rutgers University climate scientist Jennifer Francis says. "It's just been one thing after another."

Jerry Meehl, an extreme-weather expert at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, points out that May is usually a pretty extreme month, with lots of tornadoes and downpours. Even so, he says, this has been "kind of unusually intense."

The word "stuck" provides one possible explanation.

Francis, Meehl and some other meteorologists say the jet stream is in a rut, not moving nasty weather along. The high-speed, constantly shifting river of air 30,000 feet above Earth normally guides storms around the globe, but sometimes splits and comes back together somewhere else.


A stuck jet stream, with a bit of a split, explains the extremes in Texas, India, Alaska and the U.S. East, but not the typhoons, Francis says.

Other possible factors contributing to May's wild weather: the periodic warming of the central Pacific known as El Nino, climate change and natural variability, scientists say.

Those damned liberals at Fox, will they never shut up?

Nice linking skills. Unfortunately the article doesn't actually say what you claim it says.

uh, yeah it does.

Nowhere in your linked article is it claimed that global warming is proven by a rain storm in Texas. You either cannot read or are stupid.

Global warming is "proven" by the fact that the globe is getting warmer.

No Pause in Global Warming - Scientific American

Duh.

BTW, here is Bill Nye your climate guy blaming Austin Weather as global warming:

credit the daily caller:


Bill Nye the “Science Guy” is once again trying to blame global warming for a series of weather events happening around the U.S., but this time meteorologists aren’t having it.

Meteorologists criticized Nye’s claim that warm temperatures in Alaska and flooding in Texas are a product of man-made global warming.

As Tropical Storm Bill (no relation to Nye) was projected to make landfall in Texas, Nye tweeted:

Bill floods Texas. Alaska is on fire. Just a little global warming & climate change. Nothing to worry about…
Source: The Daily Caller

Meteorologists are not Climatologists. Basic flaw in your argument.

 

[IanC]

Mr. Ian, your graph of the PDO is quite interesting. Last PDO we had colder years. The present PDO in your graph corresponds to 14 of the warmest years on record, of which our present year is certainly going to one of, if not the warmest year. The graph I presented showed a very strong warming in an area about half the size of the lower fortyeight.

it's not that easy to get graphs of Alaskan temps. especially ones before 1950.

this on shows a strong PDO influence and early warm period.

and this one.


the step change is also obvious in the ocean temps.

I am not saying the PDO is the only factor affecting Alaskan temps, just a strong one. Im sure the 'adjustments' made to the actual temps is also a large factor.

 

[Crick]

So, the latest evidence indicates that even the US hasn't been in a ten year cooling period. My weather has done nothing but get hotter year after year after year and I've been all over the US. That's proof and proof is what science is based on. And I'm thinkin' I'm ALL OVER that pyrusmism o'yours.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So, the latest evidence indicates that even the US hasn't been in a ten year cooling period. My weather has done nothing but get hotter year after year after year and I've been all over the US. That's proof and proof is what science is based on. And I'm thinkin' I'm ALL OVER that pyrusmism o'yours.

You're the same Crick who said because the USA is cooling it's only local and doesn't count toward the overall "warming" Now that you adjusted the data, you count the USA back in?

Is that sane?

 

[jc456]

So, the latest evidence indicates that even the US hasn't been in a ten year cooling period. My weather has done nothing but get hotter year after year after year and I've been all over the US. That's proof and proof is what science is based on. And I'm thinkin' I'm ALL OVER that pyrusmism o'yours.

Where's all over the U.S. By the way

 

[Billy_Bob]

So, the latest evidence indicates that even the US hasn't been in a ten year cooling period. My weather has done nothing but get hotter year after year after year and I've been all over the US. That's proof and proof is what science is based on. And I'm thinkin' I'm ALL OVER that pyrusmism o'yours.

Where's all over the U.S. By the way

The data set does not show warming. What Crick is cackling about is the adjustments made by Karl and Peterson over at GISS. Never mind that the design of the stations is such that it removes all biases. They are adjusting to adjust away proof they are LYING.

The motives are clear and their adjustments have no basis in fact or reason. People like Crick and other alarmists will run with the lie and spout it wherever and whenever they can.

 

[Crick]

The data set does not show warming. What Crick is cackling about is the adjustments made by Karl and Peterson over at GISS. Never mind that the design of the stations is such that it removes all biases. They are adjusting to adjust away proof they are LYING.

The motives are clear and their adjustments have no basis in fact or reason. People like Crick and other alarmists will run with the lie and spout it wherever and whenever they can.

What Billy Boy is cackling about...

Billy Boy doesn't have a clue what I'm talking about.

Karl 2015 is not lying. It is well done work by one of the more well respected groups of researches on this topic, anywhere. When Billy accuses them of lying, it is just more of the giant conspiracy nonsense; because NO real climate scientists, no one at all outside the uneducated, anti-science, climate change deniers, is saying anything like that at all.

If you are new to this topic or haven't been paying attention, keep your mind alert to charges and accusation that - when you think about it that little bit more than the people making them - require you to believe that thousands of professional researchers are all involved in a mutual, carefully orchestrated, dramatically dishonest conspiracy that would destroy their entire careers and put many of them into jail were it to become public. Before you nod your head and go along with them because you've never really liked scientists and you're suspicious of others and of the government and you're tired of the world falling apart because of things WE HAVE done... give some clear, objective thought to how likely that grand, global conspiracy theory is to be correct and what evidence supports it beyond the unpleasant results of climate research.

Then tell the deniers like Billy Bob to take their bullshit and stuff it where the sun don't shine. It will serve mother nature far more effectively if maintained in such a location for all perpetuity.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The data set does not show warming. What Crick is cackling about is the adjustments made by Karl and Peterson over at GISS. Never mind that the design of the stations is such that it removes all biases. They are adjusting to adjust away proof they are LYING.

The motives are clear and their adjustments have no basis in fact or reason. People like Crick and other alarmists will run with the lie and spout it wherever and whenever they can.

What Billy Boy is cackling about...

Billy Boy doesn't have a clue what I'm talking about.

Karl 2015 is not lying. It is well done work by one of the more well respected groups of researches on this topic, anywhere. When Billy accuses them of lying, it is just more of the giant conspiracy nonsense; because NO real climate scientists, no one at all outside the uneducated, anti-science, climate change deniers, is saying anything like that at all.

If you are new to this topic or haven't been paying attention, keep your mind alert to charges and accusation that - when you think about it that little bit more than the people making them - require you to believe that thousands of professional researchers are all involved in a mutual, carefully orchestrated, dramatically dishonest conspiracy that would destroy their entire careers and put many of them into jail were it to become public. Before you nod your head and go along with them because you've never really liked scientists and you're suspicious of others and of the government and you're tired of the world falling apart because of things WE HAVE done... give some clear, objective thought to how likely that grand, global conspiracy theory is to be correct and what evidence supports it beyond the unpleasant results of climate research.

Then tell the deniers like Billy Bob to take their bullshit and stuff it where the sun don't shine. It will serve mother nature far more effectively if maintained in such a location for all perpetuity.

Why you getting upset and starting to name call? You sound like that chick from the EPA.

It tells me you are losing an argument, how about grow up and stick to science and not making this political , please and thank you

 

[Crick]

Where did I make anything political? Billy Bob called me a liar. Did you not notice or do you not care?

The vast majority of the world's climate scientists - the actual experts in the field - accept that the world is getting warmer and that human activity is the primary cause. In order to reject AGW, you have to find some way to refute or cancel that point. There have been weak attempts to suggest that the majority of AGW believers isn't as large as mainstream surveys and polls have shown, but those attempts fail out of the gate. The next tactic was to outright accuse them of all belonging to a massive conspiracy. That fails outright. Running out of options, they have left the massive conspiracy charge as an unspoken implication that, hopefully, will not occur to the listener when they tell us how evil climate scientists have been falsifying this record and that record while leaving out of their statements that they necessarily include the complicity of ALL climate scientists.

You don't hear climate scientists complaining about the justification for the adjustments being made by the climate data holders - nor will you. The complaints you hear come solely from the loud mouths of the ignoranti. There is no conspiracy. The climate records are not being falsified. The world IS getting warmer. Human activity IS the primary cause.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Where did I make anything political? Billy Bob called me a liar. Did you not notice or do you not care?

The vast majority of the world's climate scientists - the actual experts in the field - accept that the world is getting warmer and that human activity is the primary cause. In order to reject AGW, you have to find some way to refute or cancel that point. There have been weak attempts to suggest that the majority of AGW believers isn't as large as mainstream surveys and polls have shown, but those attempts fail out of the gate. The next tactic was to outright accuse them of all belonging to a massive conspiracy. That fails outright. Running out of options, they have left the massive conspiracy charge as an unspoken implication that, hopefully, will not occur to the listener when they tell us how evil climate scientists have been falsifying this record and that record while leaving out of their statements that they necessarily include the complicity of ALL climate scientists.

You don't hear climate scientists complaining about the justification for the adjustments being made by the climate data holders - nor will you. The complaints you hear come solely from the loud mouths of the ignoranti. There is no conspiracy. The climate records are not being falsified. The world IS getting warmer. Human activity IS the primary cause.

I call Bull Shit on Both Counts..

The records are clearly being manipulated and falsified.

There is no scientific evidence that man has influenced the earths natural cycle of warming and cooling.

You have been shown both over and over again. All you do is spout the alarmist talking points devoid of any fact.

 

[Crick]

The peer reviewed research behind the IPCC's five assessment reports is a great deal more than "talking points". Your statements are a simple denial of reality.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Where did I make anything political? Billy Bob called me a liar. Did you not notice or do you not care?

The vast majority of the world's climate scientists - the actual experts in the field - accept that the world is getting warmer and that human activity is the primary cause. In order to reject AGW, you have to find some way to refute or cancel that point. There have been weak attempts to suggest that the majority of AGW believers isn't as large as mainstream surveys and polls have shown, but those attempts fail out of the gate. The next tactic was to outright accuse them of all belonging to a massive conspiracy. That fails outright. Running out of options, they have left the massive conspiracy charge as an unspoken implication that, hopefully, will not occur to the listener when they tell us how evil climate scientists have been falsifying this record and that record while leaving out of their statements that they necessarily include the complicity of ALL climate scientists.

You don't hear climate scientists complaining about the justification for the adjustments being made by the climate data holders - nor will you. The complaints you hear come solely from the loud mouths of the ignoranti. There is no conspiracy. The climate records are not being falsified. The world IS getting warmer. Human activity IS the primary cause.

Crick why do so many people accuse you of lying?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The peer reviewed research behind the IPCC's five assessment reports is a great deal more than "talking points". Your statements are a simple denial of reality.

IPCC 5, written by Ottmar "we redistribute wealth by climate policy" Enderhofer

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The peer reviewed research behind the IPCC's five assessment reports is a great deal more than "talking points". Your statements are a simple denial of reality.

IPCC 5, written by Ottmar "we redistribute wealth by climate policy" Enderhofer

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The peer reviewed research behind the IPCC's five assessment reports is a great deal more than "talking points". Your statements are a simple denial of reality.

IPCC 5, written by Ottmar "we redistribute wealth by climate policy" Enderhofer

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The peer reviewed research behind the IPCC's five assessment reports is a great deal more than "talking points". Your statements are a simple denial of reality.

IPCC 5, written by Ottmar "we redistribute wealth by climate policy" Enderhofer

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The peer reviewed research behind the IPCC's five assessment reports is a great deal more than "talking points". Your statements are a simple denial of reality.

IPCC 5, written by Ottmar "we redistribute wealth by climate policy" Enderhofer