'Missing heat' discovery prompts new estimate of global warming

[Kosh]

Global Warming is a natural process that happens on this planet.

AGW is religious dogma that is fueled by government grant money that keeps the AGW church in power.

 

[flacaltenn]

'Missing heat' discovery prompts new estimate of global warming

Observational data on which climate records are based cover only 84 per cent of the planet – with Polar regions and parts of Africa largely excluded.

The new research published in the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society shows that the Arctic is warming at about eight times the pace of the rest of the planet. Previous studies by the UK Met Office based on the HadCRUT4 dataset, which only covers about five-sixths of the globe, suggest that global warming has slowed substantially since 1997. The new research suggests, however, that the addition of the 'missing' data indicates that the rate of warming since 1997 has been two and a half times greater than shown in the Met Office studies. Evidence for the rapid warming of the Arctic includes observations from high latitude weather stations, radiosonde and satellite observations of temperatures in the lower atmosphere and reanalysis of historical data.

Read more at: 'Missing heat' discovery prompts new estimate of global warming

One has to wonder, if climate change deniers are as good at this as they claim (for instance they claim to have determined - not via the scientific method, mind you - that climate scientists are "hiding the decline"), how is it that they missed the heat? Were they "hiding the heat" at the same time they claim climate scientists were "hiding the decline"?

Going back to the OP here to figure out how this riot started..

Answer is --- We KNEW all along that the gaps were HUGE at the poles for the SURFACE RECORD.. AND --- that the wizards were actually CASTING OUT even more Arctic Circle stations to make it SPARSER..

But none of that actually bothered me because we ALWAYS HAD a satellite record for at least RECENT history that covers 100% of the planet.. In a more UNIFORM and "less subject to malarky" type of way..

So --- why is this study NECCESSARY or IMPORTANT ???? Answer me that..
All they did was start with an INFERIOR and INCOMPLETE data set and splice in or invent more values from satellite and other sources..

I'll stick with the satellite record --- Thank -you.. And 2 and half times nothing --- would STILL be nothing if ANYONE CARED about this math excercise or NEEDED it..

 

[Kosh]

And all these posts not one AGW cultist has been able to prove the datasets with source code out of all these thousands of papers that supposedly prove AGW. Not one post with a link to these datasets and source code that prove CO2 drives climate.

 

[orogenicman]

'Missing heat' discovery prompts new estimate of global warming

Observational data on which climate records are based cover only 84 per cent of the planet – with Polar regions and parts of Africa largely excluded.

The new research published in the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society shows that the Arctic is warming at about eight times the pace of the rest of the planet. Previous studies by the UK Met Office based on the HadCRUT4 dataset, which only covers about five-sixths of the globe, suggest that global warming has slowed substantially since 1997. The new research suggests, however, that the addition of the 'missing' data indicates that the rate of warming since 1997 has been two and a half times greater than shown in the Met Office studies. Evidence for the rapid warming of the Arctic includes observations from high latitude weather stations, radiosonde and satellite observations of temperatures in the lower atmosphere and reanalysis of historical data.

Read more at: 'Missing heat' discovery prompts new estimate of global warming

One has to wonder, if climate change deniers are as good at this as they claim (for instance they claim to have determined - not via the scientific method, mind you - that climate scientists are "hiding the decline"), how is it that they missed the heat? Were they "hiding the heat" at the same time they claim climate scientists were "hiding the decline"?

Going back to the OP here to figure out how this riot started..

Answer is --- We KNEW all along that the gaps were HUGE at the poles for the SURFACE RECORD.. AND --- that the wizards were actually CASTING OUT even more Arctic Circle stations to make it SPARSER..

But none of that actually bothered me because we ALWAYS HAD a satellite record for at least RECENT history that covers 100% of the planet.. In a more UNIFORM and "less subject to malarky" type of way..

So --- why is this study NECCESSARY or IMPORTANT ???? Answer me that..
All they did was start with an INFERIOR and INCOMPLETE data set and splice in or invent more values from satellite and other sources..

I'll stick with the satellite record --- Thank -you.. And 2 and half times nothing --- would STILL be nothing if ANYONE CARED about this math excercise or NEEDED it..

One has to wonder, if climate change deniers are as good at this as they claim...

Judging from your response, the obvious answer is no.

 

[orogenicman]

And all these posts not one AGW cultist has been able to prove the datasets with source code out of all these thousands of papers that supposedly prove AGW. Not one post with a link to these datasets and source code that prove CO2 drives climate.

Prove a dataset? You mean like go out to each and every weather station and verify the readings? Take yer meds, Mr. Paranoia.

 

[SwimExpert]

Data =/= conclusions derived from interpreting data.

 

[orogenicman]

Data =/= conclusions derived from interpreting data.

And yet it is a straight forward thing to collect temperature readings and conduct statistical analysis on them.

 

[flacaltenn]

'Missing heat' discovery prompts new estimate of global warming



One has to wonder, if climate change deniers are as good at this as they claim (for instance they claim to have determined - not via the scientific method, mind you - that climate scientists are "hiding the decline"), how is it that they missed the heat? Were they "hiding the heat" at the same time they claim climate scientists were "hiding the decline"?

Going back to the OP here to figure out how this riot started..

Answer is --- We KNEW all along that the gaps were HUGE at the poles for the SURFACE RECORD.. AND --- that the wizards were actually CASTING OUT even more Arctic Circle stations to make it SPARSER..

But none of that actually bothered me because we ALWAYS HAD a satellite record for at least RECENT history that covers 100% of the planet.. In a more UNIFORM and "less subject to malarky" type of way..

So --- why is this study NECCESSARY or IMPORTANT ???? Answer me that..
All they did was start with an INFERIOR and INCOMPLETE data set and splice in or invent more values from satellite and other sources..

I'll stick with the satellite record --- Thank -you.. And 2 and half times nothing --- would STILL be nothing if ANYONE CARED about this math excercise or NEEDED it..

One has to wonder, if climate change deniers are as good at this as they claim...

Judging from your response, the obvious answer is no.

oh -- so cool. Your OP was DOA.. OBVIOUSLY when you start with INFERIOR data and muck around with it --- you can get a different answer. The guys are fibbing anyway. Because their result is NOT 2.5 times the SAT record -- it's 2.5 times ANOTHER INFERIOR INCOMPLETE thermometer study.. Here's the bottom line. I'm really gonna say it.

For 10 or 20 years -- these guys were REALLY HAPPY leaving large section of the globe UNcovered by readings because they ASSUMED that adding in MORE of the poles could only be bad news for their cause. Afterall, the bulk of the uncovered world was frozen solid and colder. Besides, there was GENERAL agreement with the satellite record and NO ONE CARED.. But when the temperatures refused to climb and they needed a moral boost, they invented a snarky title about "missing heat" to tie it in with the BTK fable and AMENDED the inferior record with who-knows-what techniques that they "invented" and arrived at a token piddling marginally LARGER rate of warming than the OFFICIAL record.

They were stone stupid to wait THIS LONG to do that if they BELIEVED that arctic warming would tip the result in their favor. I can only conclude that they were that stupid OR that it didn't favor their cause until NOW.

The satellite record is FINE. There is no evidence that 4000 thermometers, a couple occasional ship readings, some SAT readings and a new twerking algorithm would EVER be more accurate... It's more of this "proxy wrangling" trying to merge various sensors with different offsets, corrections, resolutions and coverages. And it's not neccessary --- unless youre really really desperate.

 

[SwimExpert]

There is no beautiful swan. The AGW theories are simply an ugly duckling. And those who peddle them are quacks.

 

[flacaltenn]

There is no beautiful swan. The AGW theories are simply an ugly duckling. And those who peddle them are quacks.

What??? No happy ending??? I personally think it ends with Mallard practice lawsuit.

 

[Abraham3]

And all these posts not one AGW cultist has been able to prove the datasets with source code out of all these thousands of papers that supposedly prove AGW. Not one post with a link to these datasets and source code that prove CO2 drives climate.

Prove a dataset? You mean like go out to each and every weather station and verify the readings? Take yer meds, Mr. Paranoia.

I think what's actually called for is "Intro to Computers, 101"

 

[Kosh]

And all these posts not one AGW cultist has been able to prove the datasets with source code out of all these thousands of papers that supposedly prove AGW. Not one post with a link to these datasets and source code that prove CO2 drives climate.

Prove a dataset? You mean like go out to each and every weather station and verify the readings? Take yer meds, Mr. Paranoia.

And the AGW cultists continue to show they can not produce the datasets and source code that prove CO2 drives climate.

 

[Kosh]

And all these posts not one AGW cultist has been able to prove the datasets with source code out of all these thousands of papers that supposedly prove AGW. Not one post with a link to these datasets and source code that prove CO2 drives climate.

Prove a dataset? You mean like go out to each and every weather station and verify the readings? Take yer meds, Mr. Paranoia.

I think what's actually called for is "Intro to Computers, 101"

When are you going to take the course?

Still no link to datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate.

Typical AGW cultist.

 

[Abraham3]

Do you not understand that the very way you ask that question (over and over and over again) clearly shows that you have zero familiarity with actually processing data on a computer? Or with the evidence for global warming and for man's role in its cause. How can you say something is false when you don't even know what IT is?