Is there a Scientific Theory to explain Climate Change?

[ReinyDays]

Where does AG6 allow for dissent? ...

 

[Crick]

No math ... you must be stupid ... start with SB ... or Köppen ...

Florida:

"A humid subtropical climate is a zone of climate characterized by hot and humid summers, and cool to mild winters. These climates normally lie on the southeast side of all continents (except Antarctica), generally between latitudes 25° and 40° and are located poleward from adjacent tropical climates. It is also known as warm temperate climate in some climate classifications.[1]

Under the Köppen climate classification, Cfa and Cwa climates are either described as humid subtropical climates or warm temperate climates. This climate features mean temperature in the coldest month between 0 °C (32 °F) (or −3 °C (27 °F)) and 18 °C (64 °F) and mean temperature in the warmest month 22 °C (72 °F) or higher. However, while some climatologists have opted to describe this climate type as a "humid subtropical climate",[2] Köppen himself never used this term. The humid subtropical climate classification was officially created under the Trewartha climate classification.[citation needed] In this classification, climates are termed humid subtropical when they have at least 8 months with a mean temperature above 10 °C (50 °F).

While many subtropical climates tend to be located at or near coastal locations, in some cases, they extend inland, most notably in China and the United States,[3] where they exhibit more pronounced seasonal variations and sharper contrasts between summer and winter, as part of a gradient between the hotter tropical climates of the southern coasts and the colder continental climates to the north and further inland. As such, the climate can be said to exhibit somewhat different features depending on whether it is found inland, or in a maritime position."

[Wikipedia emphasis removed, mine added]

Adding a degree or two to these definitions doesn't change the climate under Köppen ... that's inarguable ... better to point out Köppen's flaws, of which there are several ... starting with the fact it's a classification system and not a mathematical function ...

I'm open to alternatives ... are you claiming temperature is a function of CO2 concentration, then what is that function? ... f(CO2) = ? ... and state your reference for the albedo value you're using ... NASA only gives us 0.3, and that resolves to ±10ºC on Earth's surface ... you should know better than that, but you'll lie anyway ...

We get a chunk of a paper describing a regional climate and then your still unsupported claim that global warming would have no effect. Your author says no such thing.

And I am still waiting for you to identify a single lie I've told.

 

[ReinyDays]

We get a chunk of a paper describing a regional climate and then your still unsupported claim that global warming would have no effect. Your author says no such thing.

And I am still waiting for you to identify a single lie I've told.

Still no math ... that's proof you're a STUPID MOTHERFUCKER ...

The IPCC is a political body, as demonstrated by the complete lack of dissenting opinions ... so you LIE when you say they are a scientific body and use their references as scientific citations ...

=====

I'm color-coding these things for you ... they are two different complaints ... please try to keep them separate ... you're being a STUPID MOTHERFUCKER in this thread ... as opposed to LYING about your knowledge ... you should be able to prove Kepler's Laws and you don't even know that there are laws that govern orbits ... and TOO STUPID to keep that LIE straight ... see? ... color-coding ...

 

[abu afak]

Ours is the usual claim based on treating the evidence in a usual manner ... temperatures have gone up 1ºC in the past 140 years ... where has climate changed? ... we "expect" temperatures to rise another 1ºC in the next 140 years ... where will climate change? ... if both answers above are "no where" ... then climate isn't changing ... what more proof do you need? ...

Let's see your proof that man has a MEASURABLE effect on the weather ... and show your math ... (hint: think "clearcutting") ...

"Where" ie, Previous OP of mine

This from the Wall Street Journal. 11-25-2018
Corn and other crops moving North... along with Land Values.

A Warming Climate Brings New Crops to Frigid Zones
Longer growing seasons help lead northern farmers to plow up forests for crops such as corn that were once hard to grow in chilly territories
A Warming Climate Brings New Crops to Frigid Zones

LA CRETE, Alberta—The farm belt is marching northward.

Upper Alberta is bitter cold much of the year, and remote. Not much grows other than the spruce and poplar that spread out a hundred miles around Highway 88 north toward La Crete. Signs warn drivers to watch for moose and make sure their gas tanks are filled. Farms have produced mostly wheat, canola and barley. Summers were so short farmer Dicky Driedger used to tease his wife about wasting garden space growing corn.

Today, Mr. Driedger is the one growing corn. So are many other northern-Alberta farmers who are plowing up forests to create fields, which lets them grow still more of it. The new prospect of warmer-weather crops is helping lift farmland prices, with an acre near La Crete selling for nearly five times what it fetched 10 years ago.

One reason is the warming planet and longer growing seasons. Temperatures around La Crete are 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit warmer on average annually than in 1950, Canadian federal climate records show, and the growing season is nearly two weeks longer.

“A few degrees doesn’t sound like much,” said Mr. Driedger, 56, who has farmed for three decades in the area roughly as far north as Juneau, Alaska. “Maybe it doesn’t make such a big difference on wheat or canola, but on corn, it sure does.” In August, he watched a tractor-size tiller yank tree roots from the earth, which were to be piled up and ignited in giant bonfires to create new fields.

AVERAGE ANNUAL TEMPERATURE IN LA CRETE, ALBERTA
1950-2010

[........]
[........]

Please Note I do NOT respond the the Motor Mouth empty Troll 'jc456.'
He just Harrasses posts with plenty of info with his gratuitous False challenges.
3! for this simple but devastating post on where indeed there is Climate Change shown.
He needs to be Removed, but mods here love high frequency posters/page views/dollars.
Same for the NO INFO, one-line-question ("?") 'riddler' ToddsterParrot Troll who also just name calls several opponents "Sandy Vag"[ina], "Sandy", and "Vag" with nothing else in reply. (search his posts for terms)

`

`

 

[jc456]

Previous OP of mine

This from the Wall Street Journal. 11-25-2018
Corn and other crops moving North... along with Land Values.

A Warming Climate Brings New Crops to Frigid Zones
Longer growing seasons help lead northern farmers to plow up forests for crops such as corn that were once hard to grow in chilly territories
A Warming Climate Brings New Crops to Frigid Zones


LA CRETE, Alberta—The farm belt is marching northward.

Upper Alberta is bitter cold much of the year, and remote. Not much grows other than the spruce and poplar that spread out a hundred miles around Highway 88 north toward La Crete. Signs warn drivers to watch for moose and make sure their gas tanks are filled. Farms have produced mostly wheat, canola and barley. Summers were so short farmer Dicky Driedger used to tease his wife about wasting garden space growing corn.

Today, Mr. Driedger is the one growing corn. So are many other northern-Alberta farmers who are plowing up forests to create fields, which lets them grow still more of it. The new prospect of warmer-weather crops is helping lift farmland prices, with an acre near La Crete selling for nearly five times what it fetched 10 years ago.

One reason is the warming planet and longer growing seasons. Temperatures around La Crete are 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit warmer on average annually than in 1950, Canadian federal climate records show, and the growing season is nearly two weeks longer.

“A few degrees doesn’t sound like much,” said Mr. Driedger, 56, who has farmed for three decades in the area roughly as far north as Juneau, Alaska. “Maybe it doesn’t make such a big difference on wheat or canola, but on corn, it sure does.” In August, he watched a tractor-size tiller yank tree roots from the earth, which were to be piled up and ignited in giant bonfires to create new fields.

AVERAGE ANNUAL TEMPERATURE IN LA CRETE, ALBERTA
1950-2010

[........]
[........]

3.6 degree F? hahahahahahahahahahhahahaha explain how that affects planting crops? Show what the temperature of the soil is not the air temperature. too fking funny. BTW, you have any link that shows this 3.6 degree increase for an entire season?

Where's your legend in the graph?

 

[jc456]

3.6 degree F? hahahahahahahahahahhahahaha explain how that affects planting crops? Show what the temperature of the soil is not the air temperature. too fking funny. BTW, you have any link that shows this 3.6 degree increase for an entire season?

Where's your legend in the graph?

abu afak , Here, because you ignore facts like stink on shit.....

Soil Temperature For Optimal Crop Growth And Development

The temperature of the soil is essential for optimal plant growth. Accurate soil temperature assessment and forecasting aid in agricultural planning.

eos.com

Keep in mind that the optimal ground’s warmth varies depending on the stage of plant growth. For instance, pre-emergent herbicides work best under 50-55°F (10-13°C). The optimum soil temperature for seed germination ranges between 68 and 86°F (20-30°C). Additionally, various plant species have different thermal requirements for planting and throughout their development.

the range is greater than your supposed 3.6F. meaning, that isn't required to grow crops.

 

[jc456]

abu afak , Here, because you ignore facts like stink on shit.....

Soil Temperature For Optimal Crop Growth And Development

The temperature of the soil is essential for optimal plant growth. Accurate soil temperature assessment and forecasting aid in agricultural planning.

eos.com

Keep in mind that the optimal ground’s warmth varies depending on the stage of plant growth. For instance, pre-emergent herbicides work best under 50-55°F (10-13°C). The optimum soil temperature for seed germination ranges between 68 and 86°F (20-30°C). Additionally, various plant species have different thermal requirements for planting and throughout their development.

the range is greater than your supposed 3.6F. meaning, that isn't required to grow crops.

abu afak post your counter material then!! You don't get to say fake news without some counter information to prove it.

 

[Crick]

Still no math ... that's proof you're a STUPID MOTHERFUCKER ...

The IPCC is a political body, as demonstrated by the complete lack of dissenting opinions ...

All the different portions of the IPCC's work are conducted by groups of experienced, published, well-cited, degreed scientists from a multitude of different nations. That they should all be in perfect agreement right from the beginning - that there should be no dissent - on almost any topic, is simply a nonsensical suggestion.

so you LIE when you say they are a scientific body and use their references as scientific citations ...

They are an organization chartered to assess scientific research from all over the world. I have no idea what you might mean by "scientific body" but I'm quite certain that their work is scientifically superior to anything I've seen you post here. I would suggest that you are lying when you say they are a political organization and you are lying again when you say they are not a scientific body. They are almost undoubtedly the most qualified citation any of us could bring to this forum

I'm color-coding these things for you ... they are two different complaints ... please try to keep them separate ... you're being a STUPID MOTHERFUCKER in this thread ... as opposed to LYING about your knowledge ... you should be able to prove Kepler's Laws and you don't even know that there are laws that govern orbits ... and TOO STUPID to keep that LIE straight ... see? ... color-coding ...

I did a science fair project on Kepler's Laws when I was 13 years old.

You're floundering about here is getting more and more pathetic. Why don't you and I attempt to discuss the topic.

Here is the OP:

Global Warming had a CO2/Hockey Stick argument to support its proposition, but its successor, Climate Change, doesn't seem to have any scientific argument to explain a cause/effect relationship. Instead, it has devolved into a constantly changing series of social/political theories which do not even purport to be connected to physical weather events. Is there any scientific theory to explain why current Climate Change is different from past Climate Change?​

The obvious problems first. Global warming has not been "a proposition" for a great long while. It is an observation. The primary information carried by the hockey stick graph was that the warming was unprecedented in both scale and rate over at least the last 2,000 years. "Climate change", on the other hand, is a term of convenience that covers a very large collection of phenomena. Here are a few definitions:

Climate change refers to long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns. These shifts may be natural, such as through variations in the solar cycle. -- UN.org

Climate change describes a change in the average conditions — such as temperature and rainfall — in a region over a long period of time. NASA scientists have observed Earth’s surface is warming, and many of the warmest years on record have happened in the past 20 years. -- nasa.gov (for kids)

Climate change is a long-term change in the average weather patterns that have come to define Earth’s local, regional and global climates. These changes have a broad range of observed effects that are synonymous with the term. -- climate.nasa.gov

So, just like global warming, climate change is simply a name for a phenomenon that takes place. It has been taking place pretty much nonstop since the planet developed an atmosphere. And global warming has likely taken place over roughly half the planet's history (the other half being spent in global cooling)

Obviously, there are loads of science involved in the study, and, one hopes, the understanding of both processes. But the question in the OP is essentially meaningless. Global warming takes place either when energy input from the sun increases from orbital mechanics or stellar evolutionary processes or when more of that energy is captured by any of a variety of Earth-bound processes. Climate change occurs in response to global warming, global cooling, large scale chemical changes in the oceans and/or the atmosphere, tectonics changing albedo or ocean circulation and other processes.

Neither term is a hypothesis requiring the establishment of a cause-and-effect relationship.

Your turn Reiny

 

[Crick]

All the different portions of the IPCC's work are conducted by groups of experienced, published, well-cited, degreed scientists from a multitude of different nations. That they should all be in perfect agreement right from the beginning - that there should be no dissent - on almost any topic, is simply a nonsensical suggestion.

They are an organization chartered to assess scientific research from all over the world. I have no idea what you might mean by "scientific body" but I'm quite certain that their work is scientifically superior to anything I've seen you post here. I would suggest that you are lying when you say they are a political organization and you are lying again when you say they are not a scientific body. They are almost undoubtedly the most qualified citation any of us could bring to this forum

I did a science fair project on Kepler's Laws when I was 13 years old.

You're floundering about here is getting more and more pathetic. Why don't you and I attempt to discuss the topic.

Here is the OP:

Global Warming had a CO2/Hockey Stick argument to support its proposition, but its successor, Climate Change, doesn't seem to have any scientific argument to explain a cause/effect relationship. Instead, it has devolved into a constantly changing series of social/political theories which do not even purport to be connected to physical weather events. Is there any scientific theory to explain why current Climate Change is different from past Climate Change?​

The obvious problems first. Global warming has not been "a proposition" for a great long while. It is an observation. The primary information carried by the hockey stick graph was that the warming was unprecedented in both scale and rate over at least the last 2,000 years. "Climate change", on the other hand, is a term of convenience that covers a very large collection of phenomena. Here are a few definitions:

Climate change refers to long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns. These shifts may be natural, such as through variations in the solar cycle. -- UN.org

Climate change describes a change in the average conditions — such as temperature and rainfall — in a region over a long period of time. NASA scientists have observed Earth’s surface is warming, and many of the warmest years on record have happened in the past 20 years. -- nasa.gov (for kids)

Climate change is a long-term change in the average weather patterns that have come to define Earth’s local, regional and global climates. These changes have a broad range of observed effects that are synonymous with the term. -- climate.nasa.gov

So, just like global warming, climate change is simply a name for a phenomenon that takes place. It has been taking place pretty much nonstop since the planet developed an atmosphere. And global warming has likely taken place over roughly half the planet's history (the other half being spent in global cooling)

Obviously, there are loads of science involved in the study, and, one hopes, the understanding of both processes. But the question in the OP is essentially meaningless. Global warming takes place either when energy input from the sun increases from orbital mechanics or stellar evolutionary processes or when more of that energy is captured by any of a variety of Earth-bound processes. Climate change occurs in response to global warming, global cooling, large scale chemical changes in the oceans and/or the atmosphere, tectonics changing albedo or ocean circulation and other processes.

Neither term is a hypothesis requiring the establishment of a cause-and-effect relationship.

Your turn Reiny

And when you complain about my lack of math, I presume you'd like me to steer away from irrational numbers and mathematical proofs.

 

[Sunsettommy]

All the different portions of the IPCC's work are conducted by groups of experienced, published, well-cited, degreed scientists from a multitude of different nations. That they should all be in perfect agreement right from the beginning - that there should be no dissent - on almost any topic, is simply a nonsensical suggestion.

They are an organization chartered to assess scientific research from all over the world. I have no idea what you might mean by "scientific body" but I'm quite certain that their work is scientifically superior to anything I've seen you post here. I would suggest that you are lying when you say they are a political organization and you are lying again when you say they are not a scientific body. They are almost undoubtedly the most qualified citation any of us could bring to this forum

I did a science fair project on Kepler's Laws when I was 13 years old.

You're floundering about here is getting more and more pathetic. Why don't you and I attempt to discuss the topic.

Here is the OP:

Global Warming had a CO2/Hockey Stick argument to support its proposition, but its successor, Climate Change, doesn't seem to have any scientific argument to explain a cause/effect relationship. Instead, it has devolved into a constantly changing series of social/political theories which do not even purport to be connected to physical weather events. Is there any scientific theory to explain why current Climate Change is different from past Climate Change?​

The obvious problems first. Global warming has not been "a proposition" for a great long while. It is an observation. The primary information carried by the hockey stick graph was that the warming was unprecedented in both scale and rate over at least the last 2,000 years. "Climate change", on the other hand, is a term of convenience that covers a very large collection of phenomena. Here are a few definitions:

Climate change refers to long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns. These shifts may be natural, such as through variations in the solar cycle. -- UN.org

Climate change describes a change in the average conditions — such as temperature and rainfall — in a region over a long period of time. NASA scientists have observed Earth’s surface is warming, and many of the warmest years on record have happened in the past 20 years. -- nasa.gov (for kids)

Climate change is a long-term change in the average weather patterns that have come to define Earth’s local, regional and global climates. These changes have a broad range of observed effects that are synonymous with the term. -- climate.nasa.gov

So, just like global warming, climate change is simply a name for a phenomenon that takes place. It has been taking place pretty much nonstop since the planet developed an atmosphere. And global warming has likely taken place over roughly half the planet's history (the other half being spent in global cooling)

Obviously, there are loads of science involved in the study, and, one hopes, the understanding of both processes. But the question in the OP is essentially meaningless. Global warming takes place either when energy input from the sun increases from orbital mechanics or stellar evolutionary processes or when more of that energy is captured by any of a variety of Earth-bound processes. Climate change occurs in response to global warming, global cooling, large scale chemical changes in the oceans and/or the atmosphere, tectonics changing albedo or ocean circulation and other processes.

Neither term is a hypothesis requiring the establishment of a cause-and-effect relationship.

Your turn Reiny

Still can't answer his simple questions which is why you post a barrage of babble instead.

Your god IPCC is run my GOVERNMENTS with a vested interest to create control over our lives which is why they continue to promote the same failed claims in report after report while the following have been proven,

FACT: NO Hot Spot exist.

FACT NO Positive Feedback LOOP exist.

FACT: NO Climate Crisis exist.

You have repeatedly failed this reality because you have swallowed the doomsday IPCC bullshit so deeply that you will never be sane for the rest of your life.

 

[Crick]

Still can't answer his simple questions which is why you post a barrage of babble instead.

Whose simple questions?

Your god IPCC is run my GOVERNMENTS

From Wikipedia:
The IPCC informs governments about the state of knowledge on climate change, including possible response options and the natural, economic, and social impacts and risks. It does not conduct original research but undertakes periodic and systematic reviews of all relevant scientific publications by enlisting thousands of volunteer scientists and experts;[4] observers have described this work as the biggest peer review process in the scientific community.[5] Key findings are compiled into periodic "Assessment Reports" for policymakers and the general public.[6]

The IPCC is governed by its [the UN's] member states, which elects a bureau of scientists to serve through an "assessment cycle" of six to seven years. The bureau selects experts to prepare IPCC reports, drawing from nominations by governments and observer organisations.

with a vested interest to create control over our lives

This is every nation on the planet. They agree on nothing else, but you think they all agree on this and that the scientists involved have been able to fake all this for decades now without leaving one shred of evidence or of ever having a single one of the thousands of scientists involved confess to the conspiracy. THAT FAILS A SANITY TEST.

which is why they continue to promote the same failed claims in report after report while the following have been proven,

FACT: NO Hot Spot exist.

The Hot Spot exists and has been found. See Climate scientists find elusive tropospheric hot spot

FACT NO Positive Feedback LOOP exist.

Feedback loops do exist. See:

https://gml.noaa.gov/education/info_activities/pdfs/PSA_analyzing_a_feedback_mechanism.pdf

AND

15 Climate Feedback Loops and Examples - Earth How

Climate feedback loops amplify or reduce climate change. Positive feedback loops like permafrost melt amplifies climate change because it releases methane.

earthhow.com

AND

Climate change feedbacks - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

AND

Climate Feedback Loops and Tipping Points | Center for Science Education

Feedback loops play an important role in interactions among parts of the climate system. Positive feedback loops can sometimes result in irreversible change as climate conditions cross a tipping point.

scied.ucar.edu

FACT: NO Climate Crisis exist.

I have no idea what you might say you mean by "climate crisis but if you think a comment like this refutes ten thousand PhDs... you've an odd idea of the way science works.

You have repeatedly failed this reality because you have swallowed the doomsday IPCC bullshit so deeply that you will never be sane for the rest of your life.

The world is getting warmer at a rate not seen in over a million years. The primary cause is the Greenhouse Effect acting on CO2 that humans are putting into the atmosphere by the combustion of fossil fuels. This warming is a threat to the well being of human civilization. You have repeatedly failed this reality check because you have swallowed the fossil fuel industry's PR campaign hook, line and sinker. Unfortunately, your poor critical reasoning skills are threatening the well being of others.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Whose simple questions?

From Wikipedia:
The IPCC informs governments about the state of knowledge on climate change, including possible response options and the natural, economic, and social impacts and risks. It does not conduct original research but undertakes periodic and systematic reviews of all relevant scientific publications by enlisting thousands of volunteer scientists and experts;[4] observers have described this work as the biggest peer review process in the scientific community.[5] Key findings are compiled into periodic "Assessment Reports" for policymakers and the general public.[6]

The IPCC is governed by its [the UN's] member states, which elects a bureau of scientists to serve through an "assessment cycle" of six to seven years. The bureau selects experts to prepare IPCC reports, drawing from nominations by governments and observer organisations.


This is every nation on the planet. They agree on nothing else, but you think they all agree on this and that the scientists involved have been able to fake all this for decades now without leaving one shred of evidence or of ever having a single one of the thousands of scientists involved confess to the conspiracy. THAT FAILS A SANITY TEST.

The Hot Spot exists and has been found. See Climate scientists find elusive tropospheric hot spot

Feedback loops do exist. See:

https://gml.noaa.gov/education/info_activities/pdfs/PSA_analyzing_a_feedback_mechanism.pdf

AND

15 Climate Feedback Loops and Examples - Earth How

Climate feedback loops amplify or reduce climate change. Positive feedback loops like permafrost melt amplifies climate change because it releases methane.

earthhow.com

AND

Climate change feedbacks - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

AND

Climate Feedback Loops and Tipping Points | Center for Science Education

Feedback loops play an important role in interactions among parts of the climate system. Positive feedback loops can sometimes result in irreversible change as climate conditions cross a tipping point.

scied.ucar.edu

I have no idea what you might say you mean by "climate crisis but if you think a comment like this refutes ten thousand PhDs... you've an odd idea of the way science works.

The world is getting warmer at a rate not seen in over a million years. The primary cause is the Greenhouse Effect acting on CO2 that humans are putting into the atmosphere by the combustion of fossil fuels. This warming is a threat to the well being of human civilization. You have repeatedly failed this reality check because you have swallowed the fossil fuel industry's PR campaign hook, line and sinker. Unfortunately, your poor critical reasoning skills are threatening the well being of others.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Another post barrage with is a common mark of cultist thinking.

The NOAA and hadAT doesn't accept his bogus weather balloon data "corrections" which I pointed out in detail a while back which of course was ignored and that you didn't address either.

From his abstract:

Abstract​

We present an updated version of the radiosonde dataset homogenized by Iterative Universal Kriging (IUKv2), now extended through February 2013, following the method used in the original version (Sherwood et al 2008 Robust tropospheric warming revealed by iteratively homogenized radiosonde data J. Clim. 21 5336–52)."

===

It was HIS updated version but not accepted by the community since how he made the corrections can only come from a quack.

Sherwood didn't show a real hotspot which I have refuted by showing the HadAT data several times that dates up to May 2013:

Units for modelled temperature change are given in degrees Celcius. The horizontal axis begins at 90oN to the left, and ends at 90oS to the right. The vertical axis begins at the planet surface and extends to 10 hPA (ca. 16 km height). For the 200, 300 and 1000 hPa levels (ca. 12, 9 and 0 km altitude, respectively) the observed temperature change since 1979 is shown in the diagrams below.

Temperature change at 200hPa (c. 12 km height) between 20oN and 20oS since 1979, according to HadAT. The thin blue line shows the monthly values, while the thick blue line represents the simple running 37 month average, nearly corresponding to a running 3 yr average. The stippled red line shows the linear fit for the period shown, with basic statistics shown in the upper left corner of the diagram. The data were normalised by setting the average of their initial 120 months (10 years) from January 1979 to December 1988 = 0. Last month shown: December 2012. Last diagram update: 4 May 2013.
===

Temperature change at 300hPa (c. 9 km height) between 20oN and 20oS since 1979, according to HadAT. The thin blue line shows the monthly values, while the thick blue line represents the simple running 37 month average, nearly corresponding to a running 3 yr average. The stippled red line shows the linear fit for the period shown, with basic statistics shown in the upper left corner of the diagram. The data were normalised by setting the average of their initial 120 months (10 years) from January 1979 to December 1988 = 0. Last month shown: December 2012. Last diagram update: 4 May 2013.

===

Diagram showing observed linear decadal temperature change at surface, 300 hPa and 200 hPa, between 20oN and 20oS, since January 1979. Data source: HadAT and HadCRUT4. Click here to compare with modelled altitudinal temperature change pattern for doubling atmospheric CO2. Last month included in analysis: December 2012. Last diagram update: 4 May 2013.
LINK

===

From his 2008 paper showing what a Quack, he is with his dishonest scaling:

Sherwood 2008: Where you can find a hot spot at zero degrees​

LINK

===

Desperation — who needs thermometers? Sherwood finds missing hot spot with homogenized “wind” data​

LINK

=====

You are so easily mislead by quack papers.

 

[Oddball]

"Where" ie, Previous OP of mine

This from the Wall Street Journal. 11-25-2018
Corn and other crops moving North... along with Land Values.

A Warming Climate Brings New Crops to Frigid Zones
Longer growing seasons help lead northern farmers to plow up forests for crops such as corn that were once hard to grow in chilly territories
A Warming Climate Brings New Crops to Frigid Zones

LA CRETE, Alberta—The farm belt is marching northward.

Upper Alberta is bitter cold much of the year, and remote. Not much grows other than the spruce and poplar that spread out a hundred miles around Highway 88 north toward La Crete. Signs warn drivers to watch for moose and make sure their gas tanks are filled. Farms have produced mostly wheat, canola and barley. Summers were so short farmer Dicky Driedger used to tease his wife about wasting garden space growing corn.

Today, Mr. Driedger is the one growing corn. So are many other northern-Alberta farmers who are plowing up forests to create fields, which lets them grow still more of it. The new prospect of warmer-weather crops is helping lift farmland prices, with an acre near La Crete selling for nearly five times what it fetched 10 years ago.

One reason is the warming planet and longer growing seasons. Temperatures around La Crete are 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit warmer on average annually than in 1950, Canadian federal climate records show, and the growing season is nearly two weeks longer.

“A few degrees doesn’t sound like much,” said Mr. Driedger, 56, who has farmed for three decades in the area roughly as far north as Juneau, Alaska. “Maybe it doesn’t make such a big difference on wheat or canola, but on corn, it sure does.” In August, he watched a tractor-size tiller yank tree roots from the earth, which were to be piled up and ignited in giant bonfires to create new fields.

AVERAGE ANNUAL TEMPERATURE IN LA CRETE, ALBERTA
1950-2010

[........]
[........]

Please Note I do NOT respond the the Motor Mouth empty Troll 'jc456.'
He just Harrasses posts with plenty of info with his gratuitous False challenges.
3! for this simple but devastating post on where indeed there is Climate Change shown.
He needs to be Removed, but mods here love high frequency posters/page views/dollars.
Same for the NO INFO, one-line-question ("?") 'riddler' ToddsterParrot Troll who also just name calls several opponents "Sandy Vag"[ina], "Sandy", and "Vag" with nothing else in reply. (search his posts for terms)

`

`

 

[jc456]

The IPCC informs governments about the state of knowledge on climate change,

who's knowledge are they referring to?

 

[expat_panama]

I prefer the comment in MiB that a person is smart, people are dumb.

Huh. I'd have a hard time differentiating between persons and people.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Here is the update for the 300 hp region:

Models says it should be .20-30C/decade here is it is just .045C/decade barely outside the noise level.

===

Notice that Channell 3 (300hp) it goes up and down over the decades since 1958 at about zero trend.

LINK

=====

Finally straight from a student of Professor Kride:

I did my dissertation for my Master’s degree under Professor Krige, who at the time was a consultant for the Anglovaal mining company in South Africa.

He was a truly brilliant individual, so one day I asked him about his system of statistical analysis, which is now known as kriging. My reason was that I had just calculated the same gold reserve figure for a new mine called Deelkraal, but I knew instinctively (as I had worked on a nearby mine) that the numbers were too high.

He responded by saying it only works if you are using statistics from the same population group and if you adjust your result by a known constant.

I knew the Deelkraal drill results divided into two population groups and redid the calculation, which resulted in a much reduced grade and tonnage, which is exactly what happened when the mine was in commercial production.

As for the constant needed for adjustment, this was a figure that had been calculated for this particular orebody in adjacent mines. I cannot remember if this constant was a negative or positive figure, but I suspect it was negative.

So to return to Sherwood’s tosh. You cannot use kriging for results which are a mixture of population groups, such as over the land, over the oceans, or over the poles. I very much fear different elevations/atmospheric pressures should also not be combined.

Also, because the sun is the principal driver of our planet’s temperature, I suspect you should be dividing the kriging analysis into bands of latitude.

And you very definitely should not exclude correctly gathered data just because they contain inconvenient numbers.

As for the correcting constant, I guess you have to go to Planet Zarg, wherever that might be, to get it.

My conclusion on Sherwood’s ‘research’ paper? Mannish at best, complete BS most likely.

LINK

 

[abu afak]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Another post barrage with is a common mark of cultist thinking.===
Diagram showing observed linear decadal temperature change at surface, 300 hPa and 200 hPa, between 20oN and 20oS, since January 1979. Data source: HadAT and HadCRUT4. Click here to compare with modelled altitudinal temperature change pattern for doubling atmospheric CO2. Last month included in analysis: December 2012. Last diagram update: 4 May 2013.
LINK

Actually yours is the Quack Paper/LINK

It's the Blog of: Ole Humlum - Wikipedia
""Climate change views
Humlum is a member of the Norwegian climate change Denialist organization Climate Realists (Klimarealistene) [2]. He is active in Norwegian and Danish climate politics, arguing that current climate change is mainly a natural phenomenon.[1] Together with Jan-Erik Solheim and Kjel Stordahl, he published the article "Identifying natural contributions to late Holocene climate change" in Global and Planetary Change in 2011. The article argues that changes in the sun's and moon's influence on the earth may explain most of the historical and current climate change. The theory in the article was opposed by several scientists.[5][6]
He predicted in 2013 that the climate would most likely become colder in the coming 10–15 years.[7] """

Oooops!

The Usual SunsetTommy Goof-a-Graphs from the loony/Already shown Wrong WTFUWT 2%.
and why SunsetMommy has me on [FAUX} Ignore: Daily Destruction.
FOUR Pastings in FOUR Days outing his outdated and Already wrong sources.
His 20 yr old Marcott citing.... NOW thinks Temps are going Way up to a level not seen in 25 million years.

`

 

[frigidweirdo]

For the longest time I'd had the belief that I could reason w/ folks and we could all search for the truth together, and I came to learn that virtually everyone's got their minds already made up and all they wanted to do was quarrel. iow, it seems that people are stupid, but it isn't that way at all.

Arguably the most evil president America has ever had was FDR, and he powered a despicable political machine to control the U.S. all his life. At the same time the U.S. was a tremendous force for good during WWII and the world owes America a tremendous debt for beating back Fascism, the Nazis, and the Japanese empire. Not only that, but while it may seem that the entire human race is stupid humankind has carried forth an ever-advancing civilization. For thousands of years.

What I see in that is the fact that either people are not that stupid or this is proof we are being guided by a loving and caring Creator.

Reasoning with most people is not possible.

I really don't get your logic for the last paragraph.

 

[EMH]

Did Chicago need to be within 600 miles of the pole to be covered with glaciers?

Sick person, already answered multiple times, and YOU CANNOT REFUTE IT, so you troll and lie and try to HACK again, Zionist Fascist coward....

To start a continent specific ice age on Earth, you need land 600 miles from an Earth pole. Chicago was not the origin of the ice that covered it. Northern Canada was. Just as today the top of Greenland was the origin of the ice that plowed over the Viking settlers 600 years ago on the Southern tip.

Ice ages start when land gets to within 600 or so miles of an Earth pole, which then causes the annual snowfall to start stacking. 1k years after Greenland's ice age started, only the very top of Greenland had ice. 1 million years later, that is today. Covered top to bottom.

30 million years ago all of Canada down to Chicago, Indiana, and NY was covered with mile plus thick North American Ice Age glacier. After NA reached the point Greenland is close to reaching now, the CLOSEST TO THE POLE POINT... then it starts moving AWAY from the Pole, because NW becomes SW on the SAME VECTOR on a SPHERE after passing CLOSEST TO THE POLE point.


Hence, around 30 million years ago, NA started moving SW, its current trajectory. At that point in time, Chicago would project to be right about on the Arctic Circle line

Only Ellesmere Island is still 600 miles away, and it is an ISLAND.

No continuous land from Chicago to 600 miles from the pole - no more ice age on Chicago....


What we do see here are two sick liars obsessed with deliberate attempts to lie and make faux claims on subjects ALREADY ANSWERED.

 

[EMH]

Reasoning with most people is not possible.

I really don't get your logic for the last paragraph.

How did Co2 melt North America and freeze Greenland at the same time??