warmest January on record

[code1211]

So, in spite of the very strong and persistant La Nina that dragged that chart down for eight years, we had the warmest decade on record.

And when you look at the long term record, it is all up;

NOAA Paleoclimatology Global Warming - The Data

Well, wait a minute, now... You have been telling us that CO2 is the culprit and everyone has known about it since the 1800's and if we reduce CO2, then the globe will cool and we will return the Utopian existance described in the novels by Charles Dickens.

Now you tell us that cooling will take effect even when CO2 is rising because the Pacific Ocean cools off? How did the Pacific Cool with all that CO2 "Greenhousing" the heat back into it?

Does CO2 have a liberal vacation policy and is taking a little time off in the South Pacific?

This doggone CO2 must have a government job.

 

[code1211]

35 years ago they were sure it was global cooling and another ice age was imminent. And that was long before those e-mails. And that false info on the melting Himalayan glaciers. And the role of water vapor increasing temps.

Science: Another Ice Age? - TIME

Claims Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035 were false, says UN scientist | Environment | The Guardian

Water vapour caused one-third of global warming in 1990s, study reveals | Environment | The Guardian

That last link about the water vaapor inthe Stratosphere is interesting.

It's like a science fiction movie in which the enlightened are all trying to prove one thing, like CO2 causing warming, while the casual observer sees what's really happening.

In the future, we might find that the shift in the water vapor from one altitude was the "problem" all along, but the myopic examination of CO2 precluded any serious research on this.

Our civilization ends because our intelligencia is distracted. Wouldn't be the first time.

 

[Old Rocks]

Wait a moment yourself, you silly asshole.

You have long posted that there are other factors in warming and cooling the globe.

So we had a strong La Nina, a lack of sunspots, and an solar minimum, all at the same time.

No, the GHGs did not take a vacation at all. In fact, because of the presence of those GHGs, what should have been a trio of very cold years, all ranked in the top ten for the warmest in the last 150 years.

It is more than probable that our grandchildren will look back on the period between 1950 and 2010 as Utopian. And grandly criminal for the world that we will have given them.

 

[code1211]

I knew they should have kept with the term climate change. Calling it global warming gives the kooks the excuse they need to carry on their denial....

we are warming. the question is: is it man-made or not?

Yeah, well tell that to the likes of Ollie et al, who never miss a moment with regard to how cold they are....

Not to be a stick in the mud here, but the level of CO2 is not going down. According to the line of logic on this, the temp should be going up. CO2 is homogenized in the air and it has an effect which is presented as being constant and oppressive.

If it's colder that presentation is wrong.

What else is wrong?

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, Code, once more you are trotting out the lie. No, scientists did not predict an ice age in 1975.

Did scientists predict an impending ice age in the 1970s?

"The media had been spreading warnings of a cooling period since the 1950s, but those alarms grew louder in the 1970s. In 1975, cooling went from 'one of the most important problems' to a first-place tie for 'death and misery'. The claims of global catastrophe were remarkably similar to what the media deliver now about global warming." (Fire and Ice).

What the science says...
1970s ice age predictions were predominantly media based. The majority of peer reviewed research at the time predicted warming due to increasing CO2.


What was the scientific consensus in the 1970s regarding future climate? The most cited example of 1970s cooling predictions is a 1975 Newsweek article "The Cooling World" that suggested cooling "may portend a drastic decline for food production":

"Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend… But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century."

A 1974 Times Magazine article Another Ice Age? painted a similarly bleak picture:

"When meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe, they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."
However, these are media articles, not scientific studies. A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case.

 

[edthecynic]

He's also using numbers that have deliberately excluded stations at higher altitudes, while including measurements taken from obvious heat islands.....That's how the frauds have jimmied the numbers.

Still, the troposphere is where it is.

When the frauds Christy and Spencer jimmied the Troposphere numbers by using the opposite sign to "correct" for diurnal satellite drift, the deniers were claiming UAH satellite Troposphere data was the ONLY accurate data. Now that the correct sign is being used and the satellite data matches exactly the surface data, Troposphere data is suddenly suspect even though there are no heat islands in satellites.

So how do you explain the nearly exact correlation between surface data and satellite data?

Have the satellite numbers currently and in the past been corrected to the point at which you now acknowledge them to be accurate?

Is the absolute correlation between the rises and falls of satellite data and ground station data evidence that the ground stations or the satellites or both are right or wrong?

The surface data and the RSS data have always been correct, as you well know. That is why deniers used the data cooked by deniers Christy and Spencer of UAH data exclusively. Now that Christy and Spencer have acknowledged that their data was erroneous and have corrected their errors, deniers now refuse to accept even UAH data compiled by such renowned deniers.

So tell us why data from the deniers at UAH is no longer the most accurate data on Earth, as deniers claimed when it was cooked, when it shows an overall warming trend??????

 

[Old Rocks]

35 years ago they were sure it was global cooling and another ice age was imminent. And that was long before those e-mails. And that false info on the melting Himalayan glaciers. And the role of water vapor increasing temps.

Science: Another Ice Age? - TIME

Claims Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035 were false, says UN scientist | Environment | The Guardian

Water vapour caused one-third of global warming in 1990s, study reveals | Environment | The Guardian

That last link about the water vaapor inthe Stratosphere is interesting.

It's like a science fiction movie in which the enlightened are all trying to prove one thing, like CO2 causing warming, while the casual observer sees what's really happening.

In the future, we might find that the shift in the water vapor from one altitude was the "problem" all along, but the myopic examination of CO2 precluded any serious research on this.

Our civilization ends because our intelligencia is distracted. Wouldn't be the first time.

Once again, I have to use the phrase, silly ass, in referance to you. It was not some disinterested observer that discovered this negative feedback, but a scientist. And it is nice to see a negative feedback, even though all it accomplished is a bit of slowing of the warming.

However, since we do not know how that feedback is created, we do not know if it will continue. One can certainly hope so.

 

[Old Rocks]

we are warming. the question is: is it man-made or not?

Yeah, well tell that to the likes of Ollie et al, who never miss a moment with regard to how cold they are....

Not to be a stick in the mud here, but the level of CO2 is not going down. According to the line of logic on this, the temp should be going up. CO2 is homogenized in the air and it has an effect which is presented as being constant and oppressive.

If it's colder that presentation is wrong.

What else is wrong?

Let's see. First the climate is just to complex to be understood by mere mortals. Then if GHGs warm the atmosphere, natural variation in weather should cease at once.

Nice peice of logic, Code, old man.

 

[edthecynic]

we are warming. the question is: is it man-made or not?

Yeah, well tell that to the likes of Ollie et al, who never miss a moment with regard to how cold they are....

Not to be a stick in the mud here, but the level of CO2 is not going down. According to the line of logic on this, the temp should be going up. CO2 is homogenized in the air and it has an effect which is presented as being constant and oppressive.

If it's colder that presentation is wrong.

What else is wrong?

It's not colder GLOBALLY!

So your presentation is wrong.

 

[Meister]

Yeah, well tell that to the likes of Ollie et al, who never miss a moment with regard to how cold they are....

Not to be a stick in the mud here, but the level of CO2 is not going down. According to the line of logic on this, the temp should be going up. CO2 is homogenized in the air and it has an effect which is presented as being constant and oppressive.

If it's colder that presentation is wrong.

What else is wrong?

It's not colder GLOBALLY!

So your presentation is wrong.

You using junk science doesn't make it so

 

[edthecynic]

Not to be a stick in the mud here, but the level of CO2 is not going down. According to the line of logic on this, the temp should be going up. CO2 is homogenized in the air and it has an effect which is presented as being constant and oppressive.

If it's colder that presentation is wrong.

What else is wrong?

It's not colder GLOBALLY!

So your presentation is wrong.

You using junk science doesn't make it so

You using fantasy doesn't make it not so.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Well, Code, once more you are trotting out the lie. No, scientists did not predict an ice age in 1975.

Did scientists predict an impending ice age in the 1970s?

"The media had been spreading warnings of a cooling period since the 1950s, but those alarms grew louder in the 1970s. In 1975, cooling went from 'one of the most important problems' to a first-place tie for 'death and misery'. The claims of global catastrophe were remarkably similar to what the media deliver now about global warming." (Fire and Ice).

What the science says...
1970s ice age predictions were predominantly media based. The majority of peer reviewed research at the time predicted warming due to increasing CO2.


What was the scientific consensus in the 1970s regarding future climate? The most cited example of 1970s cooling predictions is a 1975 Newsweek article "The Cooling World" that suggested cooling "may portend a drastic decline for food production":

"Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend… But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century."

A 1974 Times Magazine article Another Ice Age? painted a similarly bleak picture:

"When meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe, they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."
However, these are media articles, not scientific studies. A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case.

Media drove the story just like they are driving the story now Just fact free propaganda to influence the masses .
Just like Walter Lippman teaches .
Progressives are smarter than you, dont worry about the facts, we can see the promised land, just shut up and let us take you there.

 

[code1211]

Around 1990, NOAA began weeding out more than three-quarters of the climate measuring stations around the world. They may have been working under the auspices of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). It can be shown that they systematically and purposefully, country by country, removed higher-latitude, higher-altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be cooler

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf

All that shows is your complete ignorance of how ANOMALIES work or your complete dishonesty. Certainly, since your source pretends to be an expert there is no doubt of their dishonesty. They couldn't be experts if they don't fully understand anomalies!!!!!!!

Just as it makes no difference if the stations are in warm places when you use anomalies to determine trends, it makes no difference if the places are cooler. In a cool place the 20 to 30 year average the anomaly is measured against will lower so if the deviation from that low average is positive we are in a warming trend and if it is negative we are in a cooling trend.

The more likely reason for fewer measuring stations in remote cold places is budgetary. There are fewer people willing to man the stations in remote cold places for little or no money.

Deniers produce no data because it's cheaper to criticize those who do. Why don't you deniers man those abandoned stations at your expense and produce some data on your own???

If there were 10 stations and now there are 5, there can be a difference.

If the 5 eliminated all had cooler readings, which is what the poster is claiming, then the previous averages included those cooler readings. By eliminating those readings from the later averages and leaving them in the ealier averages, warming would be shown whether same station readings went up or not.

 

[code1211]

The raw data was corrupted by zealots and greedy scientists. Anyone who thinks you can't change satellite data doesn't know much about satellites either. It is total fraud plain and simple. Warmest January on record? That should show everyone that this is a lie. It seems like all that is increasing is the manipulation of data and media exposure spreading the fake stories.

As I write this, there is snow falling in 49 states of the union. That requires it to be 32 degrees or cooler.

And it was LimpTard's climatologist Spencer and his partner in crime Christy at UAH who got caught cooking the data by using the opposite sign to correct for diurnal satellite drift to "hide the increase" in global temps. Even after their confession of guilt, deniers used their cooked numbers proclaiming the UAH Troposphere satellite data was the only accurate data. Now that the correct sign is being used and even UAH has to admit we are warming, suddenly no satellite data is accurate.

And 32 deg is hardly record cold for most of the US in the DEAD of WINTER, and the globe is quite a bit bigger than the US. They are having record heat and drought in Australia as I write this.

When did this happen? When was this discovered? When was it corrected?

When will you forget about this and discuss the facts instead of your hysteria?

 

[code1211]

That is correct. Dr. Spencer thinks we have nothing to do with it. But he does, when he doesn't mess up on + and - signs, record the numbers correctly.

And those numbers state that it is getting warmer, at an accelerating rate.

Given the fact that we have had a decade of low TSI, low sunspots, and, in 2008, a strong and persistant La Nina, one would think that our tempertures would have reflected this.

The last decade was the warmest on record. The next decade will exceed the last.

Again, the level of Sun spots and TSI rose to the highest level on record and then leveled off at that high level unhtil the recent drop a few years ago. One who is cynical of the conclusions of the IPCC might conclude that the increased activity and the resulting radiation from the Sun had an effect on the rising temperature.

Others might think it was the CO2.

Global Warming Relief May Come From The Sun


Low sunspot activity was given the name of the Dalton Solar Minimum between 1790 and 1820. The Earth's temperature during this period was several degrees lower than average. Low sunspot activity and colder temperatures are linked in research in earlier times as well. Until the decline in activity over the last few years, the Earth had seen a high level of sunspot activity since 1890. Sunspot activity peaked in 1975 and had leveled off until the recent decline.

 

[code1211]

From your link:

"“Global warming” refers to the global-average temperature increase that has been observed over the last one hundred years or more. But to many politicians and the public, the term carries the implication that mankind is responsible for that warming. This website describes evidence from my group’s government-funded research that suggests global warming is mostly natural"

Mostly does not mean ALL. So even Spencer acknowledges that 6 billion people have some measure of influence on the natural climate cycles. The question is how much.

Normally, warm cycles are naturally followed by cooling cycles, but over the last 100+ years warm cycles are being followed by basically FLAT cycles not cooling cycles resulting in each new warming cycle starting about where the last warming cycle ended. Nature's cooling seems only able to temporarily neutralize each warming cycle at best, but is unable to reverse it as would normally be expected.

Mostly is sort of a loose definition at best. Let's run with mostly for a moment though. Mostly implies that OTHER things are causing the warming, but Ed has in his infinite wisdom rules out ocean currents and the sun, because they are on opposite cycles according to him. What does that leave Ed?

Don't try blaming CO2 for it. That graph is up and down all the time. Your chart shows continuous consisent increases in temperatures. How do explain not a single month has a dip in temperature, but the CO2 graph changes all the time?

You don't speak for me, I ruled out nothing. I pointed out both nature AND man influence climate changes. It's you deniers, in your infinite lack of wisdom, who rule out man's influence.

The temp graph is up and down in the short term due to natural influences and the long term warming trend is due to human influences.
Get it?

How long is you "long term"?

Did the influence of man end the last ice Age? Did it cause the warming to the point 8000 years ago when it was a degree up from present? Did it cause the cooling to a degree cooler than present in 1700? Was it only over the last 150 years or so?

Did Man cause the temp to be 1 to 2 degrees up from present at the end of each of the last 4 interglacials.

Is you "long term" long compared to a man's lifetime or to the life of the planet? Just wondering so we can stay current with the meanings.

 

[code1211]

"The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change," said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC. The doubts of Christy and a number of other researchers focus on the thousands of weather stations around the world, which have been used to collect temperature data over the past 150 years.

These stations, they believe, have been seriously compromised by factors such as urbanization, changes in land use and, in many cases, being moved from site to site. Christy has published research papers looking at these effects in three different regions: east Africa, California and Alabama.

"The story is the same for each one," he said. "The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development."

FOXNews.com - World May Not Be Warming, Say Scientists

This is the same John Christy at UAH who got caught red-handed cooking the satellite data by using the wrong sign to correct for diurnal satellite drift to make the data read colder. He has less credibility than Faux news, which has none. To believe it was an honest mistake you'd have to believe that an expert on satellite data doesn't know what sign to use.

When did this happen? When was it dicovered? When was it corrected?

When will you give it a rest?

 

[code1211]

When the frauds Christy and Spencer jimmied the Troposphere numbers by using the opposite sign to "correct" for diurnal satellite drift, the deniers were claiming UAH satellite Troposphere data was the ONLY accurate data. Now that the correct sign is being used and the satellite data matches exactly the surface data, Troposphere data is suddenly suspect even though there are no heat islands in satellites.

So how do you explain the nearly exact correlation between surface data and satellite data?

Have the satellite numbers currently and in the past been corrected to the point at which you now acknowledge them to be accurate?

Is the absolute correlation between the rises and falls of satellite data and ground station data evidence that the ground stations or the satellites or both are right or wrong?

Since both show a strong warming, are the differances that revelant?

In the past, Ed dismissed the Satellite data as biased. I didn't really know why at the time and still don't know why he did since they seemed to be then and still seem to be very reflective of the land stations which he is so fond of.

In the post to which I responded, Ed seemed to be touting the accuracy of the satellite data.

Given the adjustments to the ground station data, I assumed that the folks reading the ground station data must be adjusting for a reason. Was it because of the satelite data?

 

[code1211]

Wait a moment yourself, you silly asshole.

You have long posted that there are other factors in warming and cooling the globe.

So we had a strong La Nina, a lack of sunspots, and an solar minimum, all at the same time.

No, the GHGs did not take a vacation at all. In fact, because of the presence of those GHGs, what should have been a trio of very cold years, all ranked in the top ten for the warmest in the last 150 years.

It is more than probable that our grandchildren will look back on the period between 1950 and 2010 as Utopian. And grandly criminal for the world that we will have given them.

Name calling?

Our grandchildren may be traveling back in time to thank us for warming up the world because the interest on the national debt will keep them from buying any kind of fuel to heat their homes.

Most of the decade plateuaed at the warmer temperature instead of increasing. With King CO2 still abundant, and with only the man-made portion which is 3% of the total emitted, being responsible for, what is the current figure, 60% of all warming, somehow, no warming occurred.

This seems to be a violation of the Theory passed down from father to son since 1825, doesn't it?

 

[code1211]

Well, Code, once more you are trotting out the lie. No, scientists did not predict an ice age in 1975.

Did scientists predict an impending ice age in the 1970s?

"The media had been spreading warnings of a cooling period since the 1950s, but those alarms grew louder in the 1970s. In 1975, cooling went from 'one of the most important problems' to a first-place tie for 'death and misery'. The claims of global catastrophe were remarkably similar to what the media deliver now about global warming." (Fire and Ice).

What the science says...
1970s ice age predictions were predominantly media based. The majority of peer reviewed research at the time predicted warming due to increasing CO2.


What was the scientific consensus in the 1970s regarding future climate? The most cited example of 1970s cooling predictions is a 1975 Newsweek article "The Cooling World" that suggested cooling "may portend a drastic decline for food production":

"Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend… But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century."

A 1974 Times Magazine article Another Ice Age? painted a similarly bleak picture:

"When meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe, they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."
However, these are media articles, not scientific studies. A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case.

What are you talking about? I didn't say a thing about an ice age occurring the 1970's... ?