May 2014

[Kosh]

All slightly breaking 1998, 2005 and 2010 does is show us it hasn't cooled.

More AGW bunk:

Here is a graph to show that the AGW cult is way off base:

A serious error was found in the NASA temperature data for the United States in 2007. When corrected, it was determined that the warmest year in the past 100 years was not in 1998 and 2006 as previously believed, but was 1934, followed 1998. 1921 became the third hottest year, followed by 2006 and 1933. Out of the five hottest years, three occurred in the 1920s and 30s and only two were in the past 10 years. Notice that the US data do not have the same steep increase in temperature shown in the corrupted data of Britain's Climate Research Unit's data in the graph above. This dramatically changes scientists understanding of the importance of the warming that has occurred since 1975. The period between 1995 and 2009 is no warmer than the period between 1920 and 1935. This error in the NASA data has lead to discoveries of other errors in the data which are raising concern about data integrity of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

All slightly breaking 1998, 2005 and 2010 does is show us it hasn't cooled.

More AGW bunk:

Here is a graph to show that the AGW cult is way off base:

A serious error was found in the NASA temperature data for the United States in 2007. When corrected, it was determined that the warmest year in the past 100 years was not in 1998 and 2006 as previously believed, but was 1934, followed 1998. 1921 became the third hottest year, followed by 2006 and 1933. Out of the five hottest years, three occurred in the 1920s and 30s and only two were in the past 10 years. Notice that the US data do not have the same steep increase in temperature shown in the corrupted data of Britain's Climate Research Unit's data in the graph above. This dramatically changes scientists understanding of the importance of the warming that has occurred since 1975. The period between 1995 and 2009 is no warmer than the period between 1920 and 1935. This error in the NASA data has lead to discoveries of other errors in the data which are raising concern about data integrity of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies.

The Chart is a Denier

 

[Kosh]

All slightly breaking 1998, 2005 and 2010 does is show us it hasn't cooled.

More AGW bunk:

Here is a graph to show that the AGW cult is way off base:

A serious error was found in the NASA temperature data for the United States in 2007. When corrected, it was determined that the warmest year in the past 100 years was not in 1998 and 2006 as previously believed, but was 1934, followed 1998. 1921 became the third hottest year, followed by 2006 and 1933. Out of the five hottest years, three occurred in the 1920s and 30s and only two were in the past 10 years. Notice that the US data do not have the same steep increase in temperature shown in the corrupted data of Britain's Climate Research Unit's data in the graph above. This dramatically changes scientists understanding of the importance of the warming that has occurred since 1975. The period between 1995 and 2009 is no warmer than the period between 1920 and 1935. This error in the NASA data has lead to discoveries of other errors in the data which are raising concern about data integrity of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies.

The Chart is a Denier

I guess so is this one:

Before the Little Ice Age, research studies have shown that there were two major warming periods; the Medieval Climate Optimum and the Holocene Optimum when it was 1.5 to nearly 3 degrees C warmer than it is today. The Vikings colonized Greenland during the Medieval Climate Optimum when they could actually grow crops on Greenland. By the 1400s Greenland had become so cold that these colonies had to be abandoned.

 

[mamooth]

More AGW bunk:

Here is a graph to show that the AGW cult is way off base:

There, poor Kosh tried to pretend USA temps represented the whole world.

However, poor Kosh isn't really deliberately dishonest. He's just kind of stupid. Which his masters appreciate, being it means he'll instantly parrot every bit of propaganda he gets fed.

 

[ScienceRocks]

How is it bunk? I said that the temperature hasn't moved at all.

 

[mamooth]

The Vikings colonized Greenland during the Medieval Climate Optimum

A local warmup, as all the records show. Again, poor addled Kosh tries to pass off a local warmup as worldwide thing.

 

[mamooth]

The Japan Meteorlogical Agency (JMA) also reports the hottest May ever.

Global Average Surface Temperature Anomalies

The Japanese use a wholly independent set of calculations, though the same raw data. From this, we can conclude ... that the Japanese are also in on the Great Socialist Conspiracy, the tentacles of which encompass the entire globe.

 

[Kosh]

How is it bunk? I said that the temperature hasn't moved at all.

No that is not what you said:

Also pointed out that the hottest temps are not what you think they are. So your entire post is bunk based on AGW religious dogma.

 

[Kosh]

More AGW bunk:

Here is a graph to show that the AGW cult is way off base:

There, poor Kosh tried to pretend USA temps represented the whole world.

However, poor Kosh isn't really deliberately dishonest. He's just kind of stupid. Which his masters appreciate, being it means he'll instantly parrot every bit of propaganda he gets fed.

Says the AGW religious follower with absolutely no science to back up their claims.

It is often reported that the temperature of the earth is higher the past 20 years than it has ever been in history. This is simply not true, nor has it ever been. Hundreds of research studies using ice cores, pollen sedimentation, tree rings, etc. have shown that there were dozens of periods in the past 11,000 years (generally called the Holocene period) that earth's temperature was significantly warmer than it is today. Earth's temperature was very much warmer at least four times during the current interglacial period. The polar bears did just fine during those warmer periods.

 

[mamooth]

Hundreds of research studies using ice cores, pollen sedimentation, tree rings, etc. have shown that there were dozens of periods in the past 11,000 years (generally called the Holocene period) that earth's temperature was significantly warmer than it is today.

You're parroting nonsense again.

Across the whole planet, the Holocene Cimate Optimum was cooler than today. The sleaze your fudgemasters attempted to pass off, yet another time, was to present a single spot and pretend it represents the entire earth. It's one of their staple big lies.

Antarctica was warmer than today during the HCO. The world as a whole was cooler. Here's the whole earth graph. Note where 2004 lies, above the HCO.

 

[kwc57]

Hundreds of research studies using ice cores, pollen sedimentation, tree rings, etc. have shown that there were dozens of periods in the past 11,000 years (generally called the Holocene period) that earth's temperature was significantly warmer than it is today.

You're parroting nonsense again.

Across the whole planet, the Holocene Cimate Optimum was cooler than today. The sleaze your fudgemasters attempted to pass off, yet another time, was to present a single spot and pretend it represents the entire earth. It's one of their staple big lies.

Antarctica was warmer than today during the HCO. The world as a whole was cooler. Here's the whole earth graph. Note where 2004 lies, above the HCO.

Why did you leave out the explanation of your graph?

"Because of the limitations of data sampling, each curve in the main plot was smoothed (see methods below) and consequently, this figure can not resolve temperature fluctuations faster than approximately 300 years. Further, while 2004 appears warmer than any other time in the long-term average, and hence might be a sign of global warming, it should also be noted that the 2004 measurement is from a single year (actually the fourth highest on record, see Image:Short Instrumental Temperature Record.png for comparison). It is impossible to know whether similarly large short-term temperature fluctuations may have occurred at other times, but are unresolved by the available resolution. The next 150 years will determine whether the long-term average centered on the present appears anomalous with respect to this plot.

Since there is no scientific consensus on how to reconstruct global temperature variations during the Holocene, the average shown here should be understood as only a rough, quasi-global approximation to the temperature history of the Holocene. In particular, higher resolution data and better spatial coverage could significantly alter the apparent long-term behavior (see below for further caveats). For another estimate of Holocene temperature fluctuations, see: [1]

While any conclusions to be drawn from the long-term average must be considered crude and potentially controversial, one can comment on a number of well established inferences from the individual curves contributing to the average. First, at many locations, there exist large temperature fluctuations on multi-centennial scales. Hence, climate change lasting for centuries appears to be a common feature of many regions. Assuming the timing information from these records is reasonably accurate, it appears that in many cases large changes at any particular site may occur without correlating to similarly large changes at other sites. Secondly, it is also notable that different locations appear to take different amounts of time to reach typical Holocene conditions following the last glacial termination. Scientists generally agree that warming concluded in the far Southern Hemisphere earlier than in most other regions. In part, the prolonged climate change may be related to prolonged changes in sea level, which took till roughly 6000 years ago to reach near modern levels. Some of the differences may also reflect timescale uncertainties."

 

[mamooth]

Why did you leave out the explanation of your graph?

Because I don't have all day to spend here. And it's nitpicking. Maybe a couple years 10,000 years ago spiked up, or maybe not. But it changes nothing. It doesn't make the current ongoing fast warming any less harmful.

 

[kwc57]

Why did you leave out the explanation of your graph?

Because I don't have all day to spend here. And it's nitpicking. Maybe a couple years 10,000 years ago spiked up, or maybe not. But it changes nothing. It doesn't make the current ongoing fast warming any less harmful.

Or maybe you have faith in a "settled science" without reading the shit you push. The whole text is riddled with, mights, maybe's, could be, etc. In other words, admitting that the data is fuzzy and it is a best guess. A little scientific advice for you, the devil is in the details.

 

[westwall]

Why did you leave out the explanation of your graph?

Because I don't have all day to spend here. And it's nitpicking. Maybe a couple years 10,000 years ago spiked up, or maybe not. But it changes nothing. It doesn't make the current ongoing fast warming any less harmful.

"Changes nothing" Sure it doesn't.

 

[Crick]

Hundreds of research studies using ice cores, pollen sedimentation, tree rings, etc. have shown that there were dozens of periods in the past 11,000 years (generally called the Holocene period) that earth's temperature was significantly warmer than it is today.

You're parroting nonsense again.

Across the whole planet, the Holocene Cimate Optimum was cooler than today. The sleaze your fudgemasters attempted to pass off, yet another time, was to present a single spot and pretend it represents the entire earth. It's one of their staple big lies.

Antarctica was warmer than today during the HCO. The world as a whole was cooler. Here's the whole earth graph. Note where 2004 lies, above the HCO.

Why did you leave out the explanation of your graph?

"Because of the limitations of data sampling, each curve in the main plot was smoothed (see methods below) and consequently, this figure can not resolve temperature fluctuations faster than approximately 300 years. Further, while 2004 appears warmer than any other time in the long-term average, and hence might be a sign of global warming, it should also be noted that the 2004 measurement is from a single year (actually the fourth highest on record, see Image:Short Instrumental Temperature Record.png for comparison). It is impossible to know whether similarly large short-term temperature fluctuations may have occurred at other times, but are unresolved by the available resolution. The next 150 years will determine whether the long-term average centered on the present appears anomalous with respect to this plot.

Since there is no scientific consensus on how to reconstruct global temperature variations during the Holocene, the average shown here should be understood as only a rough, quasi-global approximation to the temperature history of the Holocene. In particular, higher resolution data and better spatial coverage could significantly alter the apparent long-term behavior (see below for further caveats). For another estimate of Holocene temperature fluctuations, see: [1]

While any conclusions to be drawn from the long-term average must be considered crude and potentially controversial, one can comment on a number of well established inferences from the individual curves contributing to the average. First, at many locations, there exist large temperature fluctuations on multi-centennial scales. Hence, climate change lasting for centuries appears to be a common feature of many regions. Assuming the timing information from these records is reasonably accurate, it appears that in many cases large changes at any particular site may occur without correlating to similarly large changes at other sites. Secondly, it is also notable that different locations appear to take different amounts of time to reach typical Holocene conditions following the last glacial termination. Scientists generally agree that warming concluded in the far Southern Hemisphere earlier than in most other regions. In part, the prolonged climate change may be related to prolonged changes in sea level, which took till roughly 6000 years ago to reach near modern levels. Some of the differences may also reflect timescale uncertainties."

Temperatures in the modern period have been rising for the last 150 years. Even knowing that CO2 is the primary cause and knowing the harm this heating will cause, the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere not only continue to rise, they continue to accelerate. And given the effective lifespan of CO2 in the atmosphere, we can safely say that temperatures will continue to rise for AT LEAST another 150 years and likely much longer. Thus the entire duration of the current spike will be AT least 300 years and likely closer to 500 years. Such a spike would have been visible in the Holocene record.

 

[mamooth]

NOAA posts their results, calling May 2014 the hottest May in the historical record, with an anomaly of +0.74C.

Global Analysis - May 2014 | State of the Climate | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

 

[kwc57]

You're parroting nonsense again.

Across the whole planet, the Holocene Cimate Optimum was cooler than today. The sleaze your fudgemasters attempted to pass off, yet another time, was to present a single spot and pretend it represents the entire earth. It's one of their staple big lies.

Antarctica was warmer than today during the HCO. The world as a whole was cooler. Here's the whole earth graph. Note where 2004 lies, above the HCO.

Why did you leave out the explanation of your graph?

"Because of the limitations of data sampling, each curve in the main plot was smoothed (see methods below) and consequently, this figure can not resolve temperature fluctuations faster than approximately 300 years. Further, while 2004 appears warmer than any other time in the long-term average, and hence might be a sign of global warming, it should also be noted that the 2004 measurement is from a single year (actually the fourth highest on record, see Image:Short Instrumental Temperature Record.png for comparison). It is impossible to know whether similarly large short-term temperature fluctuations may have occurred at other times, but are unresolved by the available resolution. The next 150 years will determine whether the long-term average centered on the present appears anomalous with respect to this plot.

Since there is no scientific consensus on how to reconstruct global temperature variations during the Holocene, the average shown here should be understood as only a rough, quasi-global approximation to the temperature history of the Holocene. In particular, higher resolution data and better spatial coverage could significantly alter the apparent long-term behavior (see below for further caveats). For another estimate of Holocene temperature fluctuations, see: [1]

While any conclusions to be drawn from the long-term average must be considered crude and potentially controversial, one can comment on a number of well established inferences from the individual curves contributing to the average. First, at many locations, there exist large temperature fluctuations on multi-centennial scales. Hence, climate change lasting for centuries appears to be a common feature of many regions. Assuming the timing information from these records is reasonably accurate, it appears that in many cases large changes at any particular site may occur without correlating to similarly large changes at other sites. Secondly, it is also notable that different locations appear to take different amounts of time to reach typical Holocene conditions following the last glacial termination. Scientists generally agree that warming concluded in the far Southern Hemisphere earlier than in most other regions. In part, the prolonged climate change may be related to prolonged changes in sea level, which took till roughly 6000 years ago to reach near modern levels. Some of the differences may also reflect timescale uncertainties."

Temperatures in the modern period have been rising for the last 150 years. Even knowing that CO2 is the primary cause and knowing the harm this heating will cause, the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere not only continue to rise, they continue to accelerate. And given the effective lifespan of CO2 in the atmosphere, we can safely say that temperatures will continue to rise for AT LEAST another 150 years and likely much longer. Thus the entire duration of the current spike will be AT least 300 years and likely closer to 500 years. Such a spike would have been visible in the Holocene record.

The scandal of fiddled global warming data - Telegraph

"Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models. The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data. In several posts headed “Data tampering at USHCN/GISS”, Goddard compares the currently published temperature graphs with those based only on temperatures measured at the time. These show that the US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record; whereas the latest graph, nearly half of it based on “fabricated” data, shows it to have been warming at a rate equivalent to more than 3 degrees centigrade per century."

 

[mamooth]

Yes, we know Goddard has been fudging again. We've only seen the story of his fudging a dozen times.

Deniers are reliable parrots, if nothing else. They get their orders and off they all go, carpet bombing the most recent talking point all across the internet.

 

[skookerasbil]

Why did you leave out the explanation of your graph?

Because I don't have all day to spend here. And it's nitpicking. Maybe a couple years 10,000 years ago spiked up, or maybe not. But it changes nothing. It doesn't make the current ongoing fast warming any less harmful.

bOgUs


The Coming Revelation Of The 'Global Warming' Fraud Resembles The Obamacare Lie - Forbes

 

[kwc57]

Yes, we know Goddard has been fudging again. We've only seen the story of his fudging a dozen times.

Deniers are reliable parrots, if nothing else. They get their orders and off they all go, carpet bombing the most recent talking point all across the internet.

He exposes the "settled science" book cooking and he's fudging?