World Meteorological Organization - Leaves Out Empirical Temperatures From Its Yearly Report.

[Billy_Bob]

In a clearly deceptive manner the WMO has left out the last 18 years of no warming and empirical evidence that has been observed globally while touting CO2 increase. This report is usually put out in November of each year but this year preceding the Climate Conference in New York, in a clearly manipulative fashion, has prepared the report early and failed to include empirical evidence. Why would you be so deceptive?

Just one more proof that Climate Alarmism is nothing more than a political ploy to deprive the US and all man kind of their Unalienable rights. And more importantly the fleecing of the US economy.

November of the year. On September 9, the WMO issued a “Climate Summit edition” referring to the UN Climate Summit scheduled to be held in New York City, September 23, 2014. Some UN officials have declared the Climate Summit to be a “tipping point” meeting. If it is to be a “tipping point” meeting, it will be the abandonment of a key principle of science as expressed by Einstein in the Quote of the Week – Do not omit critical data.
The WMO report omits any discussion of temperature trends. There has been no significant warming trend in the atmosphere for over a decade, and no warming trend on the surface for about 17 years (Based on his statistical analysis, Ross McKitrck puts the periods of no atmospheric warming from 16 to 22 years.) The WMO is one of the parent organizations of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (The UN Environmental Programme is the other parent organization of the IPCC).

Just more of the same from these communist bastards!

Source

 

[Billy_Bob]

By omitting the temperature evidence they stop falsification (or try to any way) of the premise in open forum. All this gross omission does is show they do not have the science to back up their claims. Slick bastards..

 

[Billy_Bob]

The bulletin gives the measurement of greenhouse gases, particular carbon dioxide (CO2) with great precision; yet, the influences of greenhouse gases, and CO2, on the earth’s temperatures is left to the imagination of the reader.

morons.....

 

[Old Rocks]

Moron yourself, you ignorant fool. You want evidence of continued warming, read some peer reviewed scientific journals. From the Scripps Institute;

Solving the Mysteries of Hiatus in Global Warming The Keeling Curve

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf


Summary. Global surface temperature in 2012 was +0.56°C (1°F) warmer than the 1951-1980 base period average, despite much of the year being affected by a strong La Nina. Global temperature thus continues at a high level that is sufficient to cause a substantial increase in the frequency of extreme warm anomalies. The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing.
An update through 2012 of our global analysis1 (Fig. 1) reveals 2012 as having practically the same temperature as 2011, significantly lower than the maximum reached in 2010. These short-term global fluctuations are associated principally with natural oscillations of tropical Pacific sea surface temperatures summarized in the Nino index in the lower part of the figure. 2012 is nominally the 9th warmest year, but it is indistinguishable in rank with several other years, as shown by the error estimate for comparing nearby years. Note that the 10 warmest years in the record all occurred since 1998.
The long-term warming trend, including continual warming since the mid-1970s, has been conclusively associated with the predominant global climate forcing, human-made greenhouse gases2, which began to grow substantially early in the 20th century. The approximate stand-still of global temperature during 1940-1975 is generally attributed to an approximate balance of aerosol cooling and greenhouse gas warming during a period of rapid growth of fossil fuel use with little control on particulate air pollution, but satisfactory quantitative interpretation has been impossible because of the absence of adequate aerosol measurements3,4.
Below we discuss the contributions to temperature change in the past decade from stochastic (unforced) climate variability and from climate forcings.
Fig.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Moron yourself, you ignorant fool. You want evidence of continued warming, read some peer reviewed scientific journals. From the Scripps Institute;

Solving the Mysteries of Hiatus in Global Warming The Keeling Curve

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf


Summary. Global surface temperature in 2012 was +0.56°C (1°F) warmer than the 1951-1980 base period average, despite much of the year being affected by a strong La Nina. Global temperature thus continues at a high level that is sufficient to cause a substantial increase in the frequency of extreme warm anomalies. The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing.
An update through 2012 of our global analysis1 (Fig. 1) reveals 2012 as having practically the same temperature as 2011, significantly lower than the maximum reached in 2010. These short-term global fluctuations are associated principally with natural oscillations of tropical Pacific sea surface temperatures summarized in the Nino index in the lower part of the figure. 2012 is nominally the 9th warmest year, but it is indistinguishable in rank with several other years, as shown by the error estimate for comparing nearby years. Note that the 10 warmest years in the record all occurred since 1998.
The long-term warming trend, including continual warming since the mid-1970s, has been conclusively associated with the predominant global climate forcing, human-made greenhouse gases2, which began to grow substantially early in the 20th century. The approximate stand-still of global temperature during 1940-1975 is generally attributed to an approximate balance of aerosol cooling and greenhouse gas warming during a period of rapid growth of fossil fuel use with little control on particulate air pollution, but satisfactory quantitative interpretation has been impossible because of the absence of adequate aerosol measurements3,4.
Below we discuss the contributions to temperature change in the past decade from stochastic (unforced) climate variability and from climate forcings.
Fig.

All contrived models... they are NOT I repaet NOT empirical evidence. why is it fools are so ealisy duped..? Ignorant ass!

 

[Old Rocks]

Contrived models? Are receding glaciers contrived evidence? The continued decline of the Arctic Ocean ice contrived evidence?

http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/p1386k/pdf/02_1386K_part1.pdf


A review of the literature for each of the 11 mountain ranges, the large island, the island chain, and the archipelago was conducted to determine both the individual and the regional status of Alaskan glaciers and to characterize changes in thickness and terminus position of representative glaciers in each mountain range or island group. In many areas, observations used for determining changes date from the late 18th or early 19th century. Temperature records at all Alaskan meteorological recording stations document a 20th century warming trend. Therefore, characterizing the response of Alaska’s glaciers to changing climate helps to quantify potential sea-level rise from past, present, and future melting of glacier ice (deglaciation of the 14 glacierized regions of Alaska), understand present and future hydrological changes, and define impacts on ecosystems that are responding to deglacierization.
Many different types of data were scrutinized to determine baselines and to assess the magnitude of glacier change. These data include the following: published descriptions of glaciers (1794–2000), especially the comprehensive research by Field (1975a) and his colleagues in the Alaska part of Mountain Glaciers of the Northern Hemisphere, aerial photography (since 1926), ground photography (since 1884), airborne radar (1981–91), satellite radar (1978–98), space photography (1984–94), multispectral satellite imagery (since1972), aerial reconnaissance and field observations made by many scientists during the past several decades, and various types of proxy data. The published and unpublished data available for each glacierized region and individual glacier varied significantly. Geospatial analysis of digitized U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps is used to statistically define selected glaciological parameters in the eastern part of the Alaska Range.
The analysis determined that every mountain range and island group investigated can be characterized by significant glacier retreat, thinning, and (or) stagnation, especially those glaciers that end at lower elevations. At some locations, glaciers completely disappeared during the 20th century. In other areas, retreat that started as early as the early 18th century has continued into the 21st century. Ironically, in several areas, retreat is resulting in an increase in the total number of glaciers; even though individual glaciers are separating, the volume and area of ice continue to decrease.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png

 

[Crick]

By omitting the temperature evidence they stop falsification (or try to any way) of the premise in open forum. All this gross omission does is show they do not have the science to back up their claims. Slick bastards..

Someone caught by the two of you doesn't qualify as a "slick bastard".

 

[Crick]

Summary. Global surface temperature in 2012 was +0.56°C (1°F) warmer than the 1951-1980 base period average, despite much of the year being affected by a strong La Nina. Global temperature thus continues at a high level that is sufficient to cause a substantial increase in the frequency of extreme warm anomalies. The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing.
An update through 2012 of our global analysis1 (Fig. 1) reveals 2012 as having practically the same temperature as 2011, significantly lower than the maximum reached in 2010. These short-term global fluctuations are associated principally with natural oscillations of tropical Pacific sea surface temperatures summarized in the Nino index in the lower part of the figure. 2012 is nominally the 9th warmest year, but it is indistinguishable in rank with several other years, as shown by the error estimate for comparing nearby years. Note that the 10 warmest years in the record all occurred since 1998.
The long-term warming trend, including continual warming since the mid-1970s, has been conclusively associated with the predominant global climate forcing, human-made greenhouse gases2, which began to grow substantially early in the 20th century. The approximate stand-still of global temperature during 1940-1975 is generally attributed to an approximate balance of aerosol cooling and greenhouse gas warming during a period of rapid growth of fossil fuel use with little control on particulate air pollution, but satisfactory quantitative interpretation has been impossible because of the absence of adequate aerosol measurements3,4.
Below we discuss the contributions to temperature change in the past decade from stochastic (unforced) climate variability and from climate forcings.
Fig.

All contrived models... they are NOT I repaet NOT empirical evidence. why is it fools are so ealisy duped..? Ignorant ass!

Speaking of ignorant asses, how about you find us the word "model" in that quote? That is nothing BUT empirical data.

 

[jc456]

Summary. Global surface temperature in 2012 was +0.56°C (1°F) warmer than the 1951-1980 base period average, despite much of the year being affected by a strong La Nina. Global temperature thus continues at a high level that is sufficient to cause a substantial increase in the frequency of extreme warm anomalies. The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing.
An update through 2012 of our global analysis1 (Fig. 1) reveals 2012 as having practically the same temperature as 2011, significantly lower than the maximum reached in 2010. These short-term global fluctuations are associated principally with natural oscillations of tropical Pacific sea surface temperatures summarized in the Nino index in the lower part of the figure. 2012 is nominally the 9th warmest year, but it is indistinguishable in rank with several other years, as shown by the error estimate for comparing nearby years. Note that the 10 warmest years in the record all occurred since 1998.
The long-term warming trend, including continual warming since the mid-1970s, has been conclusively associated with the predominant global climate forcing, human-made greenhouse gases2, which began to grow substantially early in the 20th century. The approximate stand-still of global temperature during 1940-1975 is generally attributed to an approximate balance of aerosol cooling and greenhouse gas warming during a period of rapid growth of fossil fuel use with little control on particulate air pollution, but satisfactory quantitative interpretation has been impossible because of the absence of adequate aerosol measurements3,4.
Below we discuss the contributions to temperature change in the past decade from stochastic (unforced) climate variability and from climate forcings.
Fig.

All contrived models... they are NOT I repaet NOT empirical evidence. why is it fools are so ealisy duped..? Ignorant ass!

Speaking of ignorant asses, how about you find us the word "model" in that quote? That is nothing BUT empirical data.

gag me with a spoon!

 

[mamooth]

Just more of the same from these communist bastards!

You're supposed to pretend that you're not a member of an insane political cult. You know, someone who decided what's true based solely on his politics, and then went on a crusade of distorting and cherrypicking to support that political agenda. You make it so obvious, nobody can take you seriously.

Oh, given that McKitrick is a chronic pathological liar and data fudger, using him as a source also makes you as a cult loon, someone who adores all the data fabrication that the denier cult relies on.

You should act like AGW scientists instead. That is, start out without any preconceived notions, and simply follow the data. In the real world, we see the outgoing longwave radiation squeezing down in the greenhouse gas bands, the backradiation going up, the heat flow balance of the earth turning to heatin > heatout. Those are smoking guns showing how greenhouse gases are causing the warming. Models aren't needed at all, and are just icing on the cake. If your "anything but CO2" theories are to be taken seriously, you have to demonstrate why the smoking guns aren't really smoking guns.

 

[jc456]

Just more of the same from these communist bastards!

You're supposed to pretend that you're not a member of an insane political cult. You know, someone who decided what's true based solely on his politics, and then went on a crusade of distorting and cherrypicking to support that political agenda. You make it so obvious, nobody can take you seriously.

Oh, given that McKitrick is a chronic pathological liar and data fudger, using him as a source also makes you as a cult loon, someone who adores all the data fabrication that the denier cult relies on.

You should act like AGW scientists instead. That is, start out without any preconceived notions, and simply follow the data. In the real world, we see the outgoing longwave radiation squeezing down in the greenhouse gas bands, the backradiation going up, the heat flow balance of the earth turning to heatin > heatout. Those are smoking guns showing how greenhouse gases are causing the warming. Models aren't needed at all, and are just icing on the cake. If your "anything but CO2" theories are to be taken seriously, you have to demonstrate why the smoking guns aren't really smoking guns.

And when the data doesn't support your models manipulate the data to make it fit your model. No thanks!!!

 

[Crick]

Summary. Global surface temperature in 2012 was +0.56°C (1°F) warmer than the 1951-1980 base period average, despite much of the year being affected by a strong La Nina. Global temperature thus continues at a high level that is sufficient to cause a substantial increase in the frequency of extreme warm anomalies. The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing.
An update through 2012 of our global analysis1 (Fig. 1) reveals 2012 as having practically the same temperature as 2011, significantly lower than the maximum reached in 2010. These short-term global fluctuations are associated principally with natural oscillations of tropical Pacific sea surface temperatures summarized in the Nino index in the lower part of the figure. 2012 is nominally the 9th warmest year, but it is indistinguishable in rank with several other years, as shown by the error estimate for comparing nearby years. Note that the 10 warmest years in the record all occurred since 1998.
The long-term warming trend, including continual warming since the mid-1970s, has been conclusively associated with the predominant global climate forcing, human-made greenhouse gases2, which began to grow substantially early in the 20th century. The approximate stand-still of global temperature during 1940-1975 is generally attributed to an approximate balance of aerosol cooling and greenhouse gas warming during a period of rapid growth of fossil fuel use with little control on particulate air pollution, but satisfactory quantitative interpretation has been impossible because of the absence of adequate aerosol measurements3,4.
Below we discuss the contributions to temperature change in the past decade from stochastic (unforced) climate variability and from climate forcings.
Fig.

All contrived models... they are NOT I repaet NOT empirical evidence. why is it fools are so ealisy duped..? Ignorant ass!

Speaking of ignorant asses, how about you find us the word "model" in that quote? That is nothing BUT empirical data.

gag me with a spoon!

Did you find the word "model" in that text? Do you understand the word "empirical"? Did you notice that Billy Bob failed to come back when I invited him to justify his charge? The article is not talking about models. It IS talking about empirical evidence. Billy Bob's charge was more Billy Bob nonsense. Feel free to join him if you like.

 

[Billy_Bob]

NASA GISS Tweaks the Short-Term Global Temperature Trend Upwards...

Gawd I love the alarmists and their gods who live for more warmth by any means... IF nature wont produce it they manufacture it.. Just more models ( or as I like to call them broken toys).

Figure 1 compares the short-term annual trend of two recent versions of the GISS global surface temperature data, from 1998 to 2013. The version as of August 7, 2014 (through June 2014) is available through the Wayback Machine here, and the August 2014 update is available through the GISS website here.

Source

 

[Crick]

Do you understand what the term "model" means in this context? It doesn't appear as if you do.

 

[saveliberty]

Ever notice it has to be warming in areas people don't live? I mean it has been very chilly here all year long, but it is still warming because the West and the poles are just baking.

 

[Crick]

Are you suggesting NOAA, NCDC, AMS, Hadley, CRU, GISS and all the rest are lying about warm temperature in those areas?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Summary. Global surface temperature in 2012 was +0.56°C (1°F) warmer than the 1951-1980 base period average, despite much of the year being affected by a strong La Nina. Global temperature thus continues at a high level that is sufficient to cause a substantial increase in the frequency of extreme warm anomalies. The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing.
An update through 2012 of our global analysis1 (Fig. 1) reveals 2012 as having practically the same temperature as 2011, significantly lower than the maximum reached in 2010. These short-term global fluctuations are associated principally with natural oscillations of tropical Pacific sea surface temperatures summarized in the Nino index in the lower part of the figure. 2012 is nominally the 9th warmest year, but it is indistinguishable in rank with several other years, as shown by the error estimate for comparing nearby years. Note that the 10 warmest years in the record all occurred since 1998.
The long-term warming trend, including continual warming since the mid-1970s, has been conclusively associated with the predominant global climate forcing, human-made greenhouse gases2, which began to grow substantially early in the 20th century. The approximate stand-still of global temperature during 1940-1975 is generally attributed to an approximate balance of aerosol cooling and greenhouse gas warming during a period of rapid growth of fossil fuel use with little control on particulate air pollution, but satisfactory quantitative interpretation has been impossible because of the absence of adequate aerosol measurements3,4.
Below we discuss the contributions to temperature change in the past decade from stochastic (unforced) climate variability and from climate forcings.
Fig.

All contrived models... they are NOT I repaet NOT empirical evidence. why is it fools are so ealisy duped..? Ignorant ass!

Speaking of ignorant asses, how about you find us the word "model" in that quote? That is nothing BUT empirical data.

gag me with a spoon!

Did you find the word "model" in that text? Do you understand the word "empirical"? Did you notice that Billy Bob failed to come back when I invited him to justify his charge? The article is not talking about models. It IS talking about empirical evidence. Billy Bob's charge was more Billy Bob nonsense. Feel free to join him if you like.

They arrived at the conclusion by using innovative computer modeling methods to simulate regional patterns of climate anomalies. This enabled them to see global warming in greater spatial detail, revealing where it has been most intense and where there has been no warming or even cooling.

(Old Rocks Source)
Nope.. more of the same alarmist crap over and over again.. Note they do not know where it will appear or if it will appear, but they have high confidence that it will...

Where do you alarmist get your facts?

 

[saveliberty]

Are you suggesting NOAA, NCDC, AMS, Hadley, CRU, GISS and all the rest are lying about warm temperature in those areas?

No, I'm suggesting they all suffer from using the same manipulated data sets.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Are you suggesting NOAA, NCDC, AMS, Hadley, CRU, GISS and all the rest are lying about warm temperature in those areas?

Now that CRN is exposing just how worthless those "adjusted' data sets are and how corrupted they are from all the "tweeking". Not sure you want to call it lying, but what do you call agencies who manipulate their data to preconceived conclusion? Misdirection? Error? Misleading? I call it lying.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Do you understand what the term "model" means in this context? It doesn't appear as if you do.

Are you capable of reading? It doesn't appear that you do...