Is the warming in the 20th century extraordinary?

[edthecynic]

A good point here is that while the 20th century warming was major, it will pale beside what we are going to see in the next 30 years. Even the last 10 years has been extroidinery. Look at the graph in Ian's avatar. Note that the running mean from 2002 to 2007 was higher than any previous high point in the running mean except that of 1998. In fact, for 8 of the 10 years from 2001 to 2010, this has been the case.

The last ten years has been without any statistically signifigant warming at all rocks. Even the hockey team admits that. If you would step outside the walls of the church of agw for just a minute and look around, what you would see is a very real concern for some very serious cooling over the next century or so.

Don't you think it is odd that your guys keep claiming that each year is a new record when there has been no warming?

Deniers have been pushing that global cooling hoax since the 1970s. The last ten years have been the warmest decade in the history of direct instrument measurement.

From the denier website that is the source of your icon:

DECADAL TREND:
Global: +0.14 °C
Northern Hemisphere: +0.20 °C
Southern Hemisphere: +0.07 °C

 

[wirebender]

Deniers have been pushing that global cooling hoax since the 1970s. The last ten years have been the warmest decade in the history of direct instrument measurement.

Actually, it was the same people who are warmist crackpots today who were telling us that an ice age was on the way with no more substantiation then than evidence today hat the earth is going to cook.

 

[westwall]

A good point here is that while the 20th century warming was major, it will pale beside what we are going to see in the next 30 years. Even the last 10 years has been extroidinery. Look at the graph in Ian's avatar. Note that the running mean from 2002 to 2007 was higher than any previous high point in the running mean except that of 1998. In fact, for 8 of the 10 years from 2001 to 2010, this has been the case.

The last ten years has been without any statistically signifigant warming at all rocks. Even the hockey team admits that. If you would step outside the walls of the church of agw for just a minute and look around, what you would see is a very real concern for some very serious cooling over the next century or so.

Don't you think it is odd that your guys keep claiming that each year is a new record when there has been no warming?

Deniers have been pushing that global cooling hoax since the 1970s. The last ten years have been the warmest decade in the history of direct instrument measurement.

From the denier website that is the source of your icon:

DECADAL TREND:
Global: +0.14 °C
Northern Hemisphere: +0.20 °C
Southern Hemisphere: +0.07 °C

Maybe not.....



"It is good news that the authors of the PNAS paper Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998 – 2008 (Kaufmann et al. 2011) recognise that there has been no global temperature increase since 1998. Even after the standstill appears time and again in peer-reviewed scientific studies, many commentators still deny its reality. We live in the warmest decade since thermometer records began about 150 years ago, but it hasn’t gotten any warmer for at least a decade.

The researchers tweak an out-of-date climate computer model and cherry-pick the outcome to get their desired result. They do not use the latest data on the sun’s influence on the Earth, rendering their results of academic interest only.

They blame China’s increasing coal consumption that they say is adding particles into the atmosphere that reflect sunlight and therefore cool the planet. The effect of aerosols and their interplay with other agents of combustion is a major uncertainty in climate models. Moreover, despite China’s coal burning, data indicate that in the past decade the amount of aerosols in the atmosphere has not increased.

The researchers seek to explain the temperature standstill between 1998 and 2008. They say that the global temperature has increased since then.

This is misleading. There was an El Nino in 2010 (natural cyclic warming) but even that did not raise temperatures above 1998. In fact the standstill has continued to 2010 and 2011 appears to be on course to be a cooler year than any of the preceding ten years.

Tweaking computer models like this proves nothing. The real test is in the real world data. The temperature hasn’t increased for over a decade. For there to be any faith in the underlying scientific assumptions the world has to start warming soon, at an enhanced rate to compensate for it being held back for a decade.

Despite what the authors of this paper state after their tinkering with an out-of-date climate computer model, there is as yet no convincing explanation for the global temperature standstill of the past decade.

Either man-made and natural climatic effects have conspired to completely offset the warming that should have occurred due to greenhouse gasses in the past decade, or our estimation of the ‘climate sensitivity’ to greenhouse gasses is too large.

This is not an extreme or ‘sceptic’ position but represents part of the diversity of scientific opinion presented to the IPCC that is seldom reported."


Welcome to The Global Warming Policy Foundation

 

[edthecynic]

The last ten years has been without any statistically signifigant warming at all rocks. Even the hockey team admits that. If you would step outside the walls of the church of agw for just a minute and look around, what you would see is a very real concern for some very serious cooling over the next century or so.

Don't you think it is odd that your guys keep claiming that each year is a new record when there has been no warming?

Deniers have been pushing that global cooling hoax since the 1970s. The last ten years have been the warmest decade in the history of direct instrument measurement.

From the denier website that is the source of your icon:

DECADAL TREND:
Global: +0.14 °C
Northern Hemisphere: +0.20 °C
Southern Hemisphere: +0.07 °C

Maybe not.....



"It is good news that the authors of the PNAS paper Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998 – 2008 (Kaufmann et al. 2011) recognise that there has been no global temperature increase since 1998. Even after the standstill appears time and again in peer-reviewed scientific studies, many commentators still deny its reality. We live in the warmest decade since thermometer records began about 150 years ago, but it hasn’t gotten any warmer for at least a decade.

The researchers tweak an out-of-date climate computer model and cherry-pick the outcome to get their desired result. They do not use the latest data on the sun’s influence on the Earth, rendering their results of academic interest only.

They blame China’s increasing coal consumption that they say is adding particles into the atmosphere that reflect sunlight and therefore cool the planet. The effect of aerosols and their interplay with other agents of combustion is a major uncertainty in climate models. Moreover, despite China’s coal burning, data indicate that in the past decade the amount of aerosols in the atmosphere has not increased.

The researchers seek to explain the temperature standstill between 1998 and 2008. They say that the global temperature has increased since then.

This is misleading. There was an El Nino in 2010 (natural cyclic warming) but even that did not raise temperatures above 1998. In fact the standstill has continued to 2010 and 2011 appears to be on course to be a cooler year than any of the preceding ten years.

Tweaking computer models like this proves nothing. The real test is in the real world data. The temperature hasn’t increased for over a decade. For there to be any faith in the underlying scientific assumptions the world has to start warming soon, at an enhanced rate to compensate for it being held back for a decade.

Despite what the authors of this paper state after their tinkering with an out-of-date climate computer model, there is as yet no convincing explanation for the global temperature standstill of the past decade.

Either man-made and natural climatic effects have conspired to completely offset the warming that should have occurred due to greenhouse gasses in the past decade, or our estimation of the ‘climate sensitivity’ to greenhouse gasses is too large.

This is not an extreme or ‘sceptic’ position but represents part of the diversity of scientific opinion presented to the IPCC that is seldom reported."
Welcome to The Global Warming Policy Foundation

Nothing but a pack of lies from a pack of liars. They even contradict themselves in the same sentence!!!! They condemn others for "cherry-picking" data while in perfect Alinsky fashion they cherry-pick 1998 which had an El Nino of the century.!!! Then they lie about 2010, which beat 1998 even though it had a much lesser El Nino. 2005 also also beat 1998.

The global warming trend of +0.14 °C for the present decade that I cited in the post you replied to came from world renowned deniers Christy and Spencer at UAH, so you know it is the lowest possible decadal warming trend they can cook the numbers to show!!! That means this decade is at least +.14°C WARMER than the previous decade, which includes the outlier 1998, BTW!!!!!!!!!

 

[westwall]

Deniers have been pushing that global cooling hoax since the 1970s. The last ten years have been the warmest decade in the history of direct instrument measurement.

From the denier website that is the source of your icon:

DECADAL TREND:
Global: +0.14 °C
Northern Hemisphere: +0.20 °C
Southern Hemisphere: +0.07 °C

Maybe not.....



"It is good news that the authors of the PNAS paper Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998 – 2008 (Kaufmann et al. 2011) recognise that there has been no global temperature increase since 1998. Even after the standstill appears time and again in peer-reviewed scientific studies, many commentators still deny its reality. We live in the warmest decade since thermometer records began about 150 years ago, but it hasn’t gotten any warmer for at least a decade.

The researchers tweak an out-of-date climate computer model and cherry-pick the outcome to get their desired result. They do not use the latest data on the sun’s influence on the Earth, rendering their results of academic interest only.

They blame China’s increasing coal consumption that they say is adding particles into the atmosphere that reflect sunlight and therefore cool the planet. The effect of aerosols and their interplay with other agents of combustion is a major uncertainty in climate models. Moreover, despite China’s coal burning, data indicate that in the past decade the amount of aerosols in the atmosphere has not increased.

The researchers seek to explain the temperature standstill between 1998 and 2008. They say that the global temperature has increased since then.

This is misleading. There was an El Nino in 2010 (natural cyclic warming) but even that did not raise temperatures above 1998. In fact the standstill has continued to 2010 and 2011 appears to be on course to be a cooler year than any of the preceding ten years.

Tweaking computer models like this proves nothing. The real test is in the real world data. The temperature hasn’t increased for over a decade. For there to be any faith in the underlying scientific assumptions the world has to start warming soon, at an enhanced rate to compensate for it being held back for a decade.

Despite what the authors of this paper state after their tinkering with an out-of-date climate computer model, there is as yet no convincing explanation for the global temperature standstill of the past decade.

Either man-made and natural climatic effects have conspired to completely offset the warming that should have occurred due to greenhouse gasses in the past decade, or our estimation of the ‘climate sensitivity’ to greenhouse gasses is too large.

This is not an extreme or ‘sceptic’ position but represents part of the diversity of scientific opinion presented to the IPCC that is seldom reported."
Welcome to The Global Warming Policy Foundation

Nothing but a pack of lies from a pack of liars. They even contradict themselves in the same sentence!!!! They condemn others for "cherry-picking" data while in perfect Alinsky fashion they cherry-pick 1998 which had an El Nino of the century.!!! Then they lie about 2010, which beat 1998 even though it had a much lesser El Nino. 2005 also also beat 1998.

The global warming trend of +0.14 °C for the present decade that I cited in the post you replied to came from world renowned deniers Christy and Spencer at UAH, so you know it is the lowest possible decadal warming trend they can cook the numbers to show!!! That means this decade is at least +.14°C WARMER than the previous decade, which includes the outlier 1998, BTW!!!!!!!!!

Yes, you would know all about old Saul wouldn't you. The fact remains however the study was published in PNAS and the study shows that there has been no temperature increase in the time studied. Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

 

[edthecynic]

Maybe not.....



"It is good news that the authors of the PNAS paper Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998 – 2008 (Kaufmann et al. 2011) recognise that there has been no global temperature increase since 1998. Even after the standstill appears time and again in peer-reviewed scientific studies, many commentators still deny its reality. We live in the warmest decade since thermometer records began about 150 years ago, but it hasn’t gotten any warmer for at least a decade.

The researchers tweak an out-of-date climate computer model and cherry-pick the outcome to get their desired result. They do not use the latest data on the sun’s influence on the Earth, rendering their results of academic interest only.

They blame China’s increasing coal consumption that they say is adding particles into the atmosphere that reflect sunlight and therefore cool the planet. The effect of aerosols and their interplay with other agents of combustion is a major uncertainty in climate models. Moreover, despite China’s coal burning, data indicate that in the past decade the amount of aerosols in the atmosphere has not increased.

The researchers seek to explain the temperature standstill between 1998 and 2008. They say that the global temperature has increased since then.

This is misleading. There was an El Nino in 2010 (natural cyclic warming) but even that did not raise temperatures above 1998. In fact the standstill has continued to 2010 and 2011 appears to be on course to be a cooler year than any of the preceding ten years.

Tweaking computer models like this proves nothing. The real test is in the real world data. The temperature hasn’t increased for over a decade. For there to be any faith in the underlying scientific assumptions the world has to start warming soon, at an enhanced rate to compensate for it being held back for a decade.

Despite what the authors of this paper state after their tinkering with an out-of-date climate computer model, there is as yet no convincing explanation for the global temperature standstill of the past decade.

Either man-made and natural climatic effects have conspired to completely offset the warming that should have occurred due to greenhouse gasses in the past decade, or our estimation of the ‘climate sensitivity’ to greenhouse gasses is too large.

This is not an extreme or ‘sceptic’ position but represents part of the diversity of scientific opinion presented to the IPCC that is seldom reported."
Welcome to The Global Warming Policy Foundation

Nothing but a pack of lies from a pack of liars. They even contradict themselves in the same sentence!!!! They condemn others for "cherry-picking" data while in perfect Alinsky fashion they cherry-pick 1998 which had an El Nino of the century.!!! Then they lie about 2010, which beat 1998 even though it had a much lesser El Nino. 2005 also also beat 1998.

The global warming trend of +0.14 °C for the present decade that I cited in the post you replied to came from world renowned deniers Christy and Spencer at UAH, so you know it is the lowest possible decadal warming trend they can cook the numbers to show!!! That means this decade is at least +.14°C WARMER than the previous decade, which includes the outlier 1998, BTW!!!!!!!!!

Yes, you would know all about old Saul wouldn't you. The fact remains however the study was published in PNAS and the study shows that there has been no temperature increase in the time studied. Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

Again, the decadal trend shows warming, but even using the cherry-picked 1998 as the base, and assuming for argument's sake that there has been no increase in temperature since 1998, there has been no decrease either and 1998 had an El Nino of the century which no longer is in effect and the sun's radiance is presently at a low point. Absent man made global warming we should be in a pronounced cooling phase and not maintaining the same warmth level of an extreme El Nino and a higher sun radiant level with all these natural cooling forcings in effect.

 

[IanC]

In the table, you find not only the trends of the global temperature but also the trends of the regional temperatures observed by RSS AMSU, a satellite team. Apologies that I picked RSS - Roy Spencer et al. are doing a great job but I just want to avoid possible accusations that I have picked the skeptics and the most cooling dataset etc.

Let me just select two lines among the nearly 400 lines that the table offers you. The warming or cooling trends between January 1979 and May 2011 have been

•+1.43 °C / century: globally
•+1.32 °C / century: tropics
•+2.23 °C / century: North extratropics
•+0.69 °C / century: South extratropics
•+3.40 °C / century: Arctic
•-0.19 °C / century: Antarctica
•+1.63 °C / century: contin. USA
•+1.90 °C / century: North Hemisphere
•+0.93 °C / century: South Hemisphere
You see it's been mostly warming in the 31+-year period. However, let's write the same numbers with January 2001 - the beginning of the new century - as the initial month. Note that we're not trying to include the El Nino year 1998: instead, we just pick the most natural beginning of the centtury. It's been more than 10 years and the linear regression in this period gives us:

•-0.40 °C / century: globally
•-1.16 °C / century: tropics
•+0.22 °C / century: North extratropics
•-0.19 °C / century: South extratropics
•+3.83 °C / century: Arctic
•-1.27 °C / century: Antarctica
•-4.84 °C / century: contin. USA
•-0.23 °C / century: North Hemisphere
•-0.58 °C / century: South Hemisphere

all the trends, if your interested-The Reference Frame: RSS AMSU: all cooling and warming trends through May 2011

 

[edthecynic]

In the table, you find not only the trends of the global temperature but also the trends of the regional temperatures observed by RSS AMSU, a satellite team. Apologies that I picked RSS - Roy Spencer et al. are doing a great job but I just want to avoid possible accusations that I have picked the skeptics and the most cooling dataset etc.

Let me just select two lines among the nearly 400 lines that the table offers you. The warming or cooling trends between January 1979 and May 2011 have been

•+1.43 °C / century: globally
•+1.32 °C / century: tropics
•+2.23 °C / century: North extratropics
•+0.69 °C / century: South extratropics
•+3.40 °C / century: Arctic
•-0.19 °C / century: Antarctica
•+1.63 °C / century: contin. USA
•+1.90 °C / century: North Hemisphere
•+0.93 °C / century: South Hemisphere
You see it's been mostly warming in the 31+-year period. However, let's write the same numbers with January 2001 - the beginning of the new century - as the initial month. Note that we're not trying to include the El Nino year 1998: instead, we just pick the most natural beginning of the centtury. It's been more than 10 years and the linear regression in this period gives us:

•-0.40 °C / century: globally
•-1.16 °C / century: tropics
•+0.22 °C / century: North extratropics
•-0.19 °C / century: South extratropics
•+3.83 °C / century: Arctic
•-1.27 °C / century: Antarctica
•-4.84 °C / century: contin. USA
•-0.23 °C / century: North Hemisphere
•-0.58 °C / century: South Hemisphere

all the trends, if your interested-The Reference Frame: RSS AMSU: all cooling and warming trends through May 2011

First of all, your link goes to a blank page on the USMB and NOT to RSS AMSU data page. It also looks like your numbers come from some deniers blog because when I go to the actual RSS AMSU data page, the numbers don't even come close. See for yourself and please provide a link to the actual RSS AMSU site your numbers came from.
Thank you in advance.

http://www.remss.com/data/msu/month...hannel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_3.txt

EDIT: I found the source of your phony numbers.

rss-msu-trends-thru-may-2011

 

[Old Rocks]

people on the small percentage of land that is susceptible to ocean rise will either have to move farther inland or build dikes. in the unlikely scenario that rising sea levels increase according to the doomsayers. over decades and centuries. kinda like 'The Mummy', he only gets you if you stop still and scream like an idiot. even then I think sooner or later you would get tired of wet socks and move away.

Oh, if only it was that simple.....but of course you only think it is because you're so very clueless, ignorant and, frankly, rather stupid.

A large percentage of the world's population lives within 50 miles of a coastline. Example: 85 per cent of Australia's population lives within an hour's drive of the coast. Tens of millions of people living in the low-level coastal areas of southern Asia will be severely affected by rising sea levels. These include the coastlines of Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Burma. Bangldesh, one the world's poorest countries, will be one of the hardest hit by rising sea levels and will probably produce the largest initial group of climate refugees and a very explosive situation as tens of millions of Bangladeshi Muslims try to flee to India. Potential impact of sea-level rise on Bangladesh. Many of the world's major cities are situated on the coast at about current sea level. There are literally trillions of dollars of the world's infrastructure on the coasts at sea level. As sea levels rise, sea water will invade and poison the freshwater aquifers that provide drinkable water for millions of people and irrigation water for enormous agriculture areas.

Are there any cities or towns worldwide that have been on the coast since Biblical times that have fallen to rising seas? I know that some have literally sunk as did Alexandria, but htat was due to the land falling, not the sea rising. Same thing seems to be slowly occurring in Venice.

Can you list the cities being claimed by the rising sea?

As you well know, Code, that is the whole point. The sea level has been stable for many hundreds of years. But now it is rising, and the rate of rise is accelerating.

But not to worry. People like you have lied well, and you can rest assured that your children and grandchildren will reap the results, it will cost trillions to move the ports.

 

[code1211]

Oh, if only it was that simple.....but of course you only think it is because you're so very clueless, ignorant and, frankly, rather stupid.

A large percentage of the world's population lives within 50 miles of a coastline. Example: 85 per cent of Australia's population lives within an hour's drive of the coast. Tens of millions of people living in the low-level coastal areas of southern Asia will be severely affected by rising sea levels. These include the coastlines of Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Burma. Bangldesh, one the world's poorest countries, will be one of the hardest hit by rising sea levels and will probably produce the largest initial group of climate refugees and a very explosive situation as tens of millions of Bangladeshi Muslims try to flee to India. Potential impact of sea-level rise on Bangladesh. Many of the world's major cities are situated on the coast at about current sea level. There are literally trillions of dollars of the world's infrastructure on the coasts at sea level. As sea levels rise, sea water will invade and poison the freshwater aquifers that provide drinkable water for millions of people and irrigation water for enormous agriculture areas.

Are there any cities or towns worldwide that have been on the coast since Biblical times that have fallen to rising seas? I know that some have literally sunk as did Alexandria, but htat was due to the land falling, not the sea rising. Same thing seems to be slowly occurring in Venice.

Can you list the cities being claimed by the rising sea?

As you well know, Code, that is the whole point. The sea level has been stable for many hundreds of years. But now it is rising, and the rate of rise is accelerating.

But not to worry. People like you have lied well, and you can rest assured that your children and grandchildren will reap the results, it will cost trillions to move the ports.

The current warming trend, interupted by the Little Ice Age, has been proceeding for about 2500 to 3000 years. It was preceeded by a cooling trend of at least the same length and that was preceeded by another warming trend.

However, suppose we measure this only back to the year 0. There has been about a 0.7 degree increase in temperature since then. 0.4 degrees in the thousand years up to the year 1000 which has slowed to 0.3 degrees in the thousand years from 1000 to 2000.

Has this caused no melting of glaciers at all? Word on the street is that the melting mountain glaciers are what brought water to Rome and then to Constantinople. What was melting those glaciers in the year 0? Where did that water go?

2000 years even at a modest rise of sea level, say 1 mm per year, should have submerged at least one city. Even backing out 400 mm for the LIA, that leaves us with a sea level rise of about 4.5 feet. If the theory is correct, there should be some real world evidence. Where is it?

 

[IanC]

In the table, you find not only the trends of the global temperature but also the trends of the regional temperatures observed by RSS AMSU, a satellite team. Apologies that I picked RSS - Roy Spencer et al. are doing a great job but I just want to avoid possible accusations that I have picked the skeptics and the most cooling dataset etc.

Let me just select two lines among the nearly 400 lines that the table offers you. The warming or cooling trends between January 1979 and May 2011 have been

•+1.43 °C / century: globally
•+1.32 °C / century: tropics
•+2.23 °C / century: North extratropics
•+0.69 °C / century: South extratropics
•+3.40 °C / century: Arctic
•-0.19 °C / century: Antarctica
•+1.63 °C / century: contin. USA
•+1.90 °C / century: North Hemisphere
•+0.93 °C / century: South Hemisphere
You see it's been mostly warming in the 31+-year period. However, let's write the same numbers with January 2001 - the beginning of the new century - as the initial month. Note that we're not trying to include the El Nino year 1998: instead, we just pick the most natural beginning of the centtury. It's been more than 10 years and the linear regression in this period gives us:

•-0.40 °C / century: globally
•-1.16 °C / century: tropics
•+0.22 °C / century: North extratropics
•-0.19 °C / century: South extratropics
•+3.83 °C / century: Arctic
•-1.27 °C / century: Antarctica
•-4.84 °C / century: contin. USA
•-0.23 °C / century: North Hemisphere
•-0.58 °C / century: South Hemisphere

all the trends, if your interested-The Reference Frame: RSS AMSU: all cooling and warming trends through May 2011

First of all, your link goes to a blank page on the USMB and NOT to RSS AMSU data page. It also looks like your numbers come from some deniers blog because when I go to the actual RSS AMSU data page, the numbers don't even come close. See for yourself and please provide a link to the actual RSS AMSU site your numbers came from.
Thank you in advance.

http://www.remss.com/data/msu/month...hannel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_3.txt

EDIT: I found the source of your phony numbers.

rss-msu-trends-thru-may-2011

my apologies for the bad link, I will fix it the next time I am on a computer.

your RSS link is temperatures not trends. Lubos put those numbers into wolfram and calculated the trends, and posted the numbers. are you suggesting he manipulated them in some way? I am not sure if RSS uses a different type of system to calculate its trends but I assume a standard calculating program like wolfram is more than up to the task. are you arguing that the numbers are wrong or just complaining about where they came from?

 

[edthecynic]

all the trends, if your interested-The Reference Frame: RSS AMSU: all cooling and warming trends through May 2011

First of all, your link goes to a blank page on the USMB and NOT to RSS AMSU data page. It also looks like your numbers come from some deniers blog because when I go to the actual RSS AMSU data page, the numbers don't even come close. See for yourself and please provide a link to the actual RSS AMSU site your numbers came from.
Thank you in advance.

http://www.remss.com/data/msu/month...hannel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_3.txt

EDIT: I found the source of your phony numbers.

rss-msu-trends-thru-may-2011

my apologies for the bad link, I will fix it the next time I am on a computer.

your RSS link is temperatures not trends. Lubos put those numbers into wolfram and calculated the trends, and posted the numbers. are you suggesting he manipulated them in some way? I am not sure if RSS uses a different type of system to calculate its trends but I assume a standard calculating program like wolfram is more than up to the task. are you arguing that the numbers are wrong or just complaining about where they came from?

The temperatures are what are used to calculate the trends.
I gave you the link to the temperature numbers Lubos used to calculate the trends you posted and a link to the actual temperature numbers directly from RSS. You should have been able to figure out for yourself if they match. But you don't want to admit you've been had!

 

[IanC]

In the table, you find not only the trends of the global temperature but also the trends of the regional temperatures observed by RSS AMSU, a satellite team. Apologies that I picked RSS - Roy Spencer et al. are doing a great job but I just want to avoid possible accusations that I have picked the skeptics and the most cooling dataset etc.

Let me just select two lines among the nearly 400 lines that the table offers you. The warming or cooling trends between January 1979 and May 2011 have been

•+1.43 °C / century: globally
•+1.32 °C / century: tropics
•+2.23 °C / century: North extratropics
•+0.69 °C / century: South extratropics
•+3.40 °C / century: Arctic
•-0.19 °C / century: Antarctica
•+1.63 °C / century: contin. USA
•+1.90 °C / century: North Hemisphere
•+0.93 °C / century: South Hemisphere
You see it's been mostly warming in the 31+-year period. However, let's write the same numbers with January 2001 - the beginning of the new century - as the initial month. Note that we're not trying to include the El Nino year 1998: instead, we just pick the most natural beginning of the centtury. It's been more than 10 years and the linear regression in this period gives us:

•-0.40 °C / century: globally
•-1.16 °C / century: tropics
•+0.22 °C / century: North extratropics
•-0.19 °C / century: South extratropics
•+3.83 °C / century: Arctic
•-1.27 °C / century: Antarctica
•-4.84 °C / century: contin. USA
•-0.23 °C / century: North Hemisphere
•-0.58 °C / century: South Hemisphere

all the trends, if your interested-The Reference Frame: RSS AMSU: all cooling and warming trends through May 2011

First of all, your link goes to a blank page on the USMB and NOT to RSS AMSU data page. It also looks like your numbers come from some deniers blog because when I go to the actual RSS AMSU data page, the numbers don't even come close. See for yourself and please provide a link to the actual RSS AMSU site your numbers came from.
Thank you in advance.

http://www.remss.com/data/msu/month...hannel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_3.txt

EDIT: I found the source of your phony numbers.

rss-msu-trends-thru-may-2011

Code: midTroposphere = False; (* True/False *) whereString = If[midTroposphere, "TMT", "TLT"]; a = Import[ "http://www.remss.com/data/msu/monthly_time_series/ RSS_Monthly_MSU_\ AMSU_Channel_" <> whereString <> "_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03 _3. txt", "Table"]; Length[a] labels = {"year", "month", "-70 / +82.5 ", "-20 / +20.0 ", "+20.0 / +82.5 ", "-70 / -20.0 ", "+60.0 / +82.5 ", "-70 / -60.0 ", "Cont. USA", "0.0 / +82.5 ", "-70 / 0.0 "} b = a[[4 ;;]]; bwith = Prepend[b, labels]; Grid[bwith, Frame -> All] (* Linear trends in bwith *) LMfit[v_] := LinearModelFit[Transpose[{Table[i, {i, 1 , Length[v]}], v}], x, x]; howmanyrows = Length[bwith] - 1 btrendsPREP = Table[ Round[1200 * D[Normal[LMfit[bwith[[m ;; howmanyrows + 1 , column]]]], x], 0.01 ] , {m, 2 , howmanyrows}, {column, 3 , 11 }]; btrends = bwith; btrends[[2 ;; howmanyrows, 3 ;; 11 ]] = btrendsPREP; Grid[btrends, Frame -> All]

that is Lubos's code for the trends. are you saying the RSS temp link is a fraud?

 

[edthecynic]

all the trends, if your interested-The Reference Frame: RSS AMSU: all cooling and warming trends through May 2011

First of all, your link goes to a blank page on the USMB and NOT to RSS AMSU data page. It also looks like your numbers come from some deniers blog because when I go to the actual RSS AMSU data page, the numbers don't even come close. See for yourself and please provide a link to the actual RSS AMSU site your numbers came from.
Thank you in advance.

http://www.remss.com/data/msu/month...hannel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_3.txt

EDIT: I found the source of your phony numbers.

rss-msu-trends-thru-may-2011

Code: midTroposphere = False; (* True/False *) whereString = If[midTroposphere, "TMT", "TLT"]; a = Import[ "http://www.remss.com/data/msu/monthly_time_series/ RSS_Monthly_MSU_\ AMSU_Channel_" <> whereString <> "_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03 _3. txt", "Table"]; Length[a] labels = {"year", "month", "-70 / +82.5 ", "-20 / +20.0 ", "+20.0 / +82.5 ", "-70 / -20.0 ", "+60.0 / +82.5 ", "-70 / -60.0 ", "Cont. USA", "0.0 / +82.5 ", "-70 / 0.0 "} b = a[[4 ;;]]; bwith = Prepend[b, labels]; Grid[bwith, Frame -> All] (* Linear trends in bwith *) LMfit[v_] := LinearModelFit[Transpose[{Table[i, {i, 1 , Length[v]}], v}], x, x]; howmanyrows = Length[bwith] - 1 btrendsPREP = Table[ Round[1200 * D[Normal[LMfit[bwith[[m ;; howmanyrows + 1 , column]]]], x], 0.01 ] , {m, 2 , howmanyrows}, {column, 3 , 11 }]; btrends = bwith; btrends[[2 ;; howmanyrows, 3 ;; 11 ]] = btrendsPREP; Grid[btrends, Frame -> All]

that is Lubos's code for the trends. are you saying the RSS temp link is a fraud?

I'm saying LUBO'S link to the pdf of the temperature numbers he used (rss-msu-trends-thru-may-2011) is so obviously fraudulent that you would have to be blind to miss it.
Not only that, the code you just posted shows he tried to cook the numbers by using the Mid troposphere (TMT) numbers to cool off the lower Troposphere (TLT) numbers. Mid Troposphere numbers have no place in calculating surface temps. That obviously didn't cook the numbers enough so it looks like he just made up a bunch of ridiculous numbers to get the results he wanted.

Just look at these outlandish numbers for October 2010 to April 2011 that came from his pdf. The boxes are minus signs.

2010 10 &#56319;&#56332;43.8 &#56319;&#56332;24.37 &#56319;&#56332;52.03 &#56319;&#56332;57.04 &#56319;&#56332;101.89 &#56319;&#56332;65.47 &#56319;&#56332;41.07 &#56319;&#56332;34.11 &#56319;&#56332;53.57
2010 11 &#56319;&#56332;39.09 11.91 &#56319;&#56332;66.39 &#56319;&#56332;67.89 &#56319;&#56332;135.86 &#56319;&#56332;36.73 64.16 &#56319;&#56332;31.71 &#56319;&#56332;46.37
2010 12 &#56319;&#56332;16.83 46.7 &#56319;&#56332;17.97 &#56319;&#56332;87.77 &#56319;&#56332;174.14 &#56319;&#56332;14.88 190.11 11.11 &#56319;&#56332;45.5
2011 1 16.32 73.56 44.88 &#56319;&#56332;78.96 &#56319;&#56332;152.76 63.36 170.76 59.64 &#56319;&#56332;28.68
2011 2 42.6 85.8 85.8 &#56319;&#56332;52.44 238.44 147.72 54.84 86.88 &#56319;&#56332;3.48
2011 3 91.8 154.8 17.4 99. &#56319;&#56332;332.4 &#56319;&#56332;161.4 &#56319;&#56332;296.4 73.8 110.4
2011 4 24. 157.2 &#56319;&#56332;150. 56.4 327.6 &#56319;&#56332;309.6 &#56319;&#56332;662.4 &#56319;&#56332;33.6 82.8

Now look at the same period TLT numbers directly from RSS.

2010 10 0.303 0.140 0.399 0.386 1.124 0.357 0.496 0.291 0.315
2010 11 0.316 -0.067 0.689 0.355 1.191 0.130 0.022 0.419 0.208
2010 12 0.220 -0.225 0.472 0.461 1.403 0.165 -0.853 0.230 0.210
2011 1 0.085 -0.299 0.211 0.389 1.803 -0.098 -0.791 0.041 0.130
2011 2 0.052 -0.222 0.055 0.360 -0.104 -0.584 -0.556 -0.011 0.117
2011 3 -0.027 -0.284 0.213 0.010 1.388 0.099 0.072 0.057 -0.115
2011 4 0.106 -0.156 0.366 0.128 0.562 0.088 0.129 0.208 -0.000


How dumb do you have to pretend to be not to see it????????????

 

[Old Rocks]

Deniers have been pushing that global cooling hoax since the 1970s. The last ten years have been the warmest decade in the history of direct instrument measurement.

Actually, it was the same people who are warmist crackpots today who were telling us that an ice age was on the way with no more substantiation then than evidence today hat the earth is going to cook.

OK, so you like being lying peice of shit. For it has been pointed out to you before that never happened.

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

The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. Today, with 30+years more data to analyse, we've reached a clear scientific consensus: 97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming.

 

[westwall]

Deniers have been pushing that global cooling hoax since the 1970s. The last ten years have been the warmest decade in the history of direct instrument measurement.

Actually, it was the same people who are warmist crackpots today who were telling us that an ice age was on the way with no more substantiation then than evidence today hat the earth is going to cook.

OK, so you like being lying peice of shit. For it has been pointed out to you before that never happened.

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

The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. Today, with 30+years more data to analyse, we've reached a clear scientific consensus: 97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming.

Lying? Really? The Washington Post in its July 9 edition had a story where Dr. SI Rasool states that he used Hansens computer models to arrive at a opinion that the globe was headed for global cooling within the next 50 or 60 years. That story lead to many, many others.

Rasool and Schneider did write an interesting report however where they state that CO2 does indeed raise temps but as the concentration increases the amount of warming decreases...you should read that one too...




"Publication Abstracts

Rasool and Schneider 1971

Rasool, S.I., and S.H. Schneider, 1971: Atmospheric carbon dioxide and aerosols: Effects of large increases on global climate. Science, 173, 138-141, doi:10.1126/science.173.3992.138.

Effects on the global temperature of large increases in carbon dioxide and aerosol densities in the atmosphere of Earth have been computed. It is found that, although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. For aerosols, however, the net effect of increase in density is to reduce the surface temperature of Earth. Because of the exponential dependence of the backscattering, the rate of temperature decrease is augmented with increasing aerosol content. An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5°K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age."




"Cold yet?

NASA scientist James E. Hansen, who has publicly criticized the Bush administration for dragging its feet on climate change and labeled skeptics of man-made global warming as distracting “court jesters,” appears in a 1971 Washington Post article that warns of an impending ice age within 50 years.

“U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming,” blares the headline of the July 9, 1971, article, which cautions readers that the world “could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age, a leading atmospheric scientist predicts.”

The scientist was S.I.Rasool, a colleague of Mr. Hansen’s at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The article goes on to say that Mr. Rasool came to his chilling conclusions by resorting in part to a new computer program developed by Mr. Hansen that studied clouds above Venus.

The 1971 article, discovered this week by Washington resident John Lockwood while he was conducting related research at the Library of Congress, says that “in the next 50 years” — or by 2021 — fossil-fuel dust injected by man into the atmosphere “could screen out so much sunlight that the average temperature could drop by six degrees,” resulting in a buildup of “new glaciers that could eventually cover huge areas.”

If sustained over “several years, five to 10,” or so Mr. Rasool estimated, “such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age.”

Post staff writer Victor Cohn penned the story about the article, which appeared that same day in the journal Science. For his part, Mr. Cohn contacted Gordon F. MacDonald, a top scientist in the Nixon administration, who considered Mr. Rasool a “first-rate atmospheric physicist” whose findings are “consistent with estimates I and others have made.”


Inside the Beltway - Washington Times

Pubs.GISS: Rasool and Schneider 1971: Atmospheric carbon dioxide and aerosols: Effects of large increases...

 

[ScienceRocks]

Actually, it was the same people who are warmist crackpots today who were telling us that an ice age was on the way with no more substantiation then than evidence today hat the earth is going to cook.

OK, so you like being lying peice of shit. For it has been pointed out to you before that never happened.

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

The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. Today, with 30+years more data to analyse, we've reached a clear scientific consensus: 97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming.

Lying? Really? The Washington Post in its July 9 edition had a story where Dr. SI Rasool states that he used Hansens computer models to arrive at a opinion that the globe was headed for global cooling within the next 50 or 60 years. That story lead to many, many others.

Rasool and Schneider did write an interesting report however where they state that CO2 does indeed raise temps but as the concentration increases the amount of warming decreases...you should read that one too...




"Publication Abstracts

Rasool and Schneider 1971

Rasool, S.I., and S.H. Schneider, 1971: Atmospheric carbon dioxide and aerosols: Effects of large increases on global climate. Science, 173, 138-141, doi:10.1126/science.173.3992.138.

Effects on the global temperature of large increases in carbon dioxide and aerosol densities in the atmosphere of Earth have been computed. It is found that, although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. For aerosols, however, the net effect of increase in density is to reduce the surface temperature of Earth. Because of the exponential dependence of the backscattering, the rate of temperature decrease is augmented with increasing aerosol content. An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5°K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age."




"Cold yet?

NASA scientist James E. Hansen, who has publicly criticized the Bush administration for dragging its feet on climate change and labeled skeptics of man-made global warming as distracting &#8220;court jesters,&#8221; appears in a 1971 Washington Post article that warns of an impending ice age within 50 years.

&#8220;U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming,&#8221; blares the headline of the July 9, 1971, article, which cautions readers that the world &#8220;could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age, a leading atmospheric scientist predicts.&#8221;

The scientist was S.I.Rasool, a colleague of Mr. Hansen&#8217;s at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The article goes on to say that Mr. Rasool came to his chilling conclusions by resorting in part to a new computer program developed by Mr. Hansen that studied clouds above Venus.

The 1971 article, discovered this week by Washington resident John Lockwood while he was conducting related research at the Library of Congress, says that &#8220;in the next 50 years&#8221; &#8212; or by 2021 &#8212; fossil-fuel dust injected by man into the atmosphere &#8220;could screen out so much sunlight that the average temperature could drop by six degrees,&#8221; resulting in a buildup of &#8220;new glaciers that could eventually cover huge areas.&#8221;

If sustained over &#8220;several years, five to 10,&#8221; or so Mr. Rasool estimated, &#8220;such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age.&#8221;

Post staff writer Victor Cohn penned the story about the article, which appeared that same day in the journal Science. For his part, Mr. Cohn contacted Gordon F. MacDonald, a top scientist in the Nixon administration, who considered Mr. Rasool a &#8220;first-rate atmospheric physicist&#8221; whose findings are &#8220;consistent with estimates I and others have made.&#8221;


Inside the Beltway - Washington Times

Pubs.GISS: Rasool and Schneider 1971: Atmospheric carbon dioxide and aerosols: Effects of large increases...

He made some sense as the 1950-1970s had sulfur emissions that caused a real cooling of .1 to .15c in global temperatures...This is even with the fact that the 1950's had the highest solar output with 205 plus sun spot number compared to 180 for many of the other solar maxs since.

The earth warmed in the 80s and 90s at the rate it did because of the capping of the sulfur emissions on our coal plants and cleaner fuel within our gas tanks. This let the longer term of co2 emissions to allow the warming to occur. NOW the paper that shows that china and India causing huge output of sulfur emissions are once again with this time a pretty sizable down turn of solar output.

Your right that---more co2=less warming as it rises log wise.