NASA's top global warming nut admits warming has stopped for 10 years...

[IanC]

And then we have the rising temperatures....

I question things if they dont make sense, from either the skeptical or warming sides.

does it make sense that two independent sets of adjustments produce almost the exact same results? there is more variation in different versions of GISS or UAH than between the unofficial Salinger version designed when he was a PhD student in the 80's and the official version that was concocted to save face in 2009.

more importantly though, does it make sense? the southern hemisphere has shown less 'global warming' than the northern hemisphere. why should a small island nation surrounded by ocean show more global warming than almost anywhere else?

 

[Saigon]

does it make sense that two independent sets of adjustments produce almost the exact same results?

Yes, it does.

It proves that the accusations made against the Niwa were - as most of us knew at the time - politically motivated and made largely by a right wing politician.

why should a small island nation surrounded by ocean show more global warming than almost anywhere else?

Actually, NZ records are similar to Australia's, but with less of the extreme heat waves and floods that Australias has suffered with for the past 20 years of climate change.

 

[westwall]

does it make sense that two independent sets of adjustments produce almost the exact same results?

Yes, it does.

It proves that the accusations made against the Niwa were - as most of us knew at the time - politically motivated and made largely by a right wing politician.

why should a small island nation surrounded by ocean show more global warming than almost anywhere else?

Actually, NZ records are similar to Australia's, but with less of the extreme heat waves and floods that Australias has suffered with for the past 20 years of climate change.

The last 20 years? Dude, you're priceless! Punch in any year, and I mean ANY year, and you will see that Australia has been the same since record keeping began. The last 20 years look remarkably similar to the 20 before, and the 20 before that, and the 100 before that!

In other words silly person, you are full of it as usual. And NIWA was falsifying data...but you know that too.

 

[Gadawg73]

Why not go with the best evidence?
Ice core data. How is that political? What does it show and prove?
Each of us need to go and research that. I have extensively for many years.
Tree rings? How is that political? What does it show and prove?
Coral reefs? How is that political? What does it show and prove?
How were each and every scientific test and method conducted in each of those three areas? How were these tests conducted and what instrumental results were observed and collected on air and ocean temperatures, sea ice melt and green house gas concentrations?
The evidence is overwhelming and convincing to those that are willing to shed their political ideology and focus on the preponderance of this evidence which is growing every year.
Skeptics offer nothing other than their unexplained natural variations and solar radiation hitting the earth.
And where is there any of their evidence to refute any of those tests?
Now let us look at the flip side which I USED to be on for many years. What is their evidence and what methods do they use to come to their conclusions?
Their top researchers NOW, they used to, do not dispute that there is warming. They note specifically the warming of the 30s and the 40s, slight cooling in the 40s-70s and warming again in the last 10 years. They call it "natural" mainly due to ocean circulation changes and numerous other factors and NOT human induced in any way.
Now let us look at the collection of results from the folks that report that there is global warming and it is man made induced:
There are numerous, as many as 20, different lines of evidence that the earth is warming and greenhouse gasses are increasing in the atmosphere.
And not one from the skeptics to refute it. If folks have one here then please post it. Keep in mind the earth is the earth and not one stretch of land.
Issac Newton was laughed at 350 years by skeptics that claimed his theories were frauds. His thesis was that if separate sets of data are best explained by 1 theory or idea then that explanation is most likely the truth.
And 350 years of scientific testing has proven him right.
None of the models used by skeptics that only use their single theory natural variation as their cause of global warming can account for the increase in global warming seen over the last 30 years.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Alert me by pm when the earth is warming again. Thanks.

 

[westwall]

Why not go with the best evidence?
Ice core data. How is that political? What does it show and prove?
Each of us need to go and research that. I have extensively for many years.
Tree rings? How is that political? What does it show and prove?
Coral reefs? How is that political? What does it show and prove?
How were each and every scientific test and method conducted in each of those three areas? How were these tests conducted and what instrumental results were observed and collected on air and ocean temperatures, sea ice melt and green house gas concentrations?
The evidence is overwhelming and convincing to those that are willing to shed their political ideology and focus on the preponderance of this evidence which is growing every year.
Skeptics offer nothing other than their unexplained natural variations and solar radiation hitting the earth.
And where is there any of their evidence to refute any of those tests?
Now let us look at the flip side which I USED to be on for many years. What is their evidence and what methods do they use to come to their conclusions?
Their top researchers NOW, they used to, do not dispute that there is warming. They note specifically the warming of the 30s and the 40s, slight cooling in the 40s-70s and warming again in the last 10 years. They call it "natural" mainly due to ocean circulation changes and numerous other factors and NOT human induced in any way.
Now let us look at the collection of results from the folks that report that there is global warming and it is man made induced:
There are numerous, as many as 20, different lines of evidence that the earth is warming and greenhouse gasses are increasing in the atmosphere.
And not one from the skeptics to refute it. If folks have one here then please post it. Keep in mind the earth is the earth and not one stretch of land.
Issac Newton was laughed at 350 years by skeptics that claimed his theories were frauds. His thesis was that if separate sets of data are best explained by 1 theory or idea then that explanation is most likely the truth.
And 350 years of scientific testing has proven him right.
None of the models used by skeptics that only use their single theory natural variation as their cause of global warming can account for the increase in global warming seen over the last 30 years.

Well, the problem with tree rings is the rings don't really measure heat do they? They measure the amount of moisture the tree got in that particular year. However, I agree that the use of ice core data can be very helpful.

That data shows that CO2 rise lags heat by hundreds of years so instantaneously the CO2 as cause of warming theory is blown right out of the water. No politics, just simple science.

 

[Saigon]

That data shows that CO2 rise lags heat by hundreds of years so instantaneously the CO2 as cause of warming theory is blown right out of the water. No politics, just simple science.

When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit. The warming causes the oceans to release CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise. Overall, about 90% of the global warming occurs after the CO2 increase.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Milankovitch_Cycles_400000.gif

 

[polarbear]

That data shows that CO2 rise lags heat by hundreds of years so instantaneously the CO2 as cause of warming theory is blown right out of the water. No politics, just simple science.

When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit. The warming causes the oceans to release CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise. Overall, about 90% of the global warming occurs after the CO2 increase.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Milankovitch_Cycles_400000.gif

As usual "Saigon" with a quote from "skepticalscience.org"...the web site that desperately want`s to collect mouse clicks so that it does not dwindle into insignificance.
So what was the orbital change from 1350 to 1850 when the temperature has dropped 3 times to ice age levels, in 1650, 1770 and 1850 ?

It takes as much energy to electrically heat a commercial greenhouse filled with ambient air as it does to heat a greenhouse with propane heaters that generate CO2.
That has been tried out more than once.

When a liquid releases a dissolved gas the liquid cools down as a result of it.
That`s why soft drink bottling companies saturate their soft drinks with CO2
When dissolved CO2 evaporates from a liquid it has twice the volumetric cooling capacity as ice has.

 

[SSDD]

It takes as much energy to electrically heat a commercial greenhouse filled with ambient air as it does to heat a greenhouse with propane heaters that generate CO2.
That has been tried out more than once.

When a liquid releases a dissolved gas the liquid cools down as a result of it.
That`s why soft drink bottling companies saturate their soft drinks with CO2

Wouldn't it be great if warmers could grasp and understand the profound signifigance of those two statements as they relate to the AGW myth?

 

[polarbear]

It takes as much energy to electrically heat a commercial greenhouse filled with ambient air as it does to heat a greenhouse with propane heaters that generate CO2.
That has been tried out more than once.

When a liquid releases a dissolved gas the liquid cools down as a result of it.
That`s why soft drink bottling companies saturate their soft drinks with CO2

Wouldn't it be great if warmers could grasp and understand the profound signifigance of those two statements as they relate to the AGW myth?

But on the other hand...wouldn`t it be great if we could make positive feed back amplifiers that that don`t draw more power when you crank them up?
It would revolutionize power plant engineering.

A positive feed-back loop amplifier as in "AGW" transforms a tiny energy flash from an infrared LED into a big bright light in just 7 loops.
But as it does it drew the extra energy from the lap-top batteries when the screen produced the ever larger and brighter light flashes.
There is no free lunch...more light requires more power, no matter what the wavelength and that goes for infrared too.

"Saigon"..:
The CO2 amplifies the warming

 

[Gadawg73]

It takes as much energy to electrically heat a commercial greenhouse filled with ambient air as it does to heat a greenhouse with propane heaters that generate CO2.
That has been tried out more than once.

When a liquid releases a dissolved gas the liquid cools down as a result of it.
That`s why soft drink bottling companies saturate their soft drinks with CO2

Wouldn't it be great if warmers could grasp and understand the profound signifigance of those two statements as they relate to the AGW myth?

So all of the NASA and NOAA as well as thousands of scientists worldwide believe in a myth and their research is all bogus.
You do understand that is exactly what you are claiming. That you are right and thousands of them are outright frauds.

 

[westwall]

It takes as much energy to electrically heat a commercial greenhouse filled with ambient air as it does to heat a greenhouse with propane heaters that generate CO2.
That has been tried out more than once.

When a liquid releases a dissolved gas the liquid cools down as a result of it.
That`s why soft drink bottling companies saturate their soft drinks with CO2

Wouldn't it be great if warmers could grasp and understand the profound signifigance of those two statements as they relate to the AGW myth?

So all of the NASA and NOAA as well as thousands of scientists worldwide believe in a myth and their research is all bogus.
You do understand that is exactly what you are claiming. That you are right and thousands of them are outright frauds.

I suggest you use a little common sense and actually LOOK at who is saying what. NOAA DOES NOT ascribe to the AGW theory wholesale. There are significant maajorities within the agency who feel the claims are at best hyperbole and at worst outright fraud.

The same go's for NASA. GISS (a division of NASA, headed by the head warmist Hansen)
is the proponent of AGW "theory". Hansens former boss at NASA thinks he has harmed the agency.


Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist, Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen, NASA’s vocal man-made global warming fear soothsayer, has now publicly declared himself a skeptic and declared that Hansen “embarrassed NASA” with his alarming climate claims and said Hansen was “was never muzzled.” Theon joins the rapidly growing ranks of international scientists abandoning the promotion of man-made global warming fears.

“I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man made,” Theon wrote to the Minority Office at the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15, 2009. “I was, in effect, Hansen’s supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results,” Theon, the former Chief of the Climate Processes Research Program at NASA Headquarters and former Chief of the Atmospheric Dynamics & Radiation Branch explained.

“Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA’s official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind’s effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress,” Theon wrote.

http://www.qando.net/ - Hansen?s Former NASA Boss Declares Himself An AGW Skeptic

Finally, the government organisations are all in favor of the "theory" because it does two things...first it gathers ever more power to the governments involved leading eventually to a mass collectivist world government and second it takes money away from the public and gives it to the aforementioned governments so they can more easily accomplish their goals.

They all admit it too. You just have to actually read what they say amongst themselves and yes, those discussions are available.

 

[westwall]

That data shows that CO2 rise lags heat by hundreds of years so instantaneously the CO2 as cause of warming theory is blown right out of the water. No politics, just simple science.

When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit. The warming causes the oceans to release CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise. Overall, about 90% of the global warming occurs after the CO2 increase.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Milankovitch_Cycles_400000.gif

Hmmmm, how did all the cold periods AFTER the end of the last ice age occur then?

 

[mamooth]

Time to change the topic from "hilarious denialist failures at basic physics and logic" to some actual recent science.

Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content
Balmaseda, Trenberth, and Källén (2013)
Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content - Balmaseda - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

The whole thing is behind a paywall, but a quick summary is:

1. Warming -- as defined by less heat leaving the earth than arriving -- has definitely accelerated over the past 15 years.

2. Most of that heat has been going into the deep ocean, making it less visible in the air.

3. That confirms the solution of the "missing heat" issue, that of why the satellite measurements of heat/energy flux imbalances weren't matching air/sea surface temps.

4. The predominant La Nina of the past decade is a big factor, transporting heat deep into the ocean and bringing up cold water to chill the air. Once it flips to a strong El Nino, temps will skyrocket.

Denialists, you may now proceed with business as usual. You know, claiming all the data must be forged because you fail so hard at understanding it and because it disagrees with your very strange claims. And make sure to add some personal attacks, because that makes you so much more credible. I don't suggest you do the usual thing of running back to your political cult for instructions, because this is too new for them to have come up with any OfficialPartyResponse.

 

[SSDD]

So all of the NASA and NOAA as well as thousands of scientists worldwide believe in a myth and their research is all bogus.
You do understand that is exactly what you are claiming. That you are right and thousands of them are outright frauds.

What I am saying is that climate science is the unfortunate victim of an error cascade much like the hard science medical community is presently reeling from. It happens when bad science is accepted as good science and used as a basis for further research and claims.

Don't you think it odd that no actual measurement of the greenhouse effect have ever been made, or no mathematical model of the greenhouse effect has ever been put forward...The only "evidence' of a greenhose effect as claimed by climate science is the output of computer models...not even a single bit of real observable evidence exists for it.

 

[SSDD]

Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content
Balmaseda, Trenberth, and Källén (2013)

The first question is how did this heat sneak past the argos system? That global system has not detected any of the claimed heat....and the idea of warm water sinking to the cold depths and hiding out there is about as rediculous as anything climate science has put out thus far.

 

[polarbear]

Time to change the topic from "hilarious denialist failures at basic physics and logic" to some actual recent science.

Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content
Balmaseda, Trenberth, and Källén (2013)
Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content - Balmaseda - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

The whole thing is behind a paywall, but a quick summary is:

1. Warming -- as defined by less heat leaving the earth than arriving -- has definitely accelerated over the past 15 years.

2. Most of that heat has been going into the deep ocean, making it less visible in the air.

3. That confirms the solution of the "missing heat" issue, that of why the satellite measurements of heat/energy flux imbalances weren't matching air/sea surface temps.

4. The predominant La Nina of the past decade is a big factor, transporting heat deep into the ocean and bringing up cold water to chill the air. Once it flips to a strong El Nino, temps will skyrocket.

Denialists, you may now proceed with business as usual. You know, claiming all the data must be forged because you fail so hard at understanding it and because it disagrees with your very strange claims. And make sure to add some personal attacks, because that makes you so much more credible. I don't suggest you do the usual thing of running back to your political cult for instructions, because this is too new for them to have come up with any OfficialPartyResponse.

Where the hell did you that crackpot idea get from?
That`s called "up welling" and during this process no heat "is transported deep into the ocean"....and it is limited to a depth of ~ 30 meters and occurs only along coastal lines.

Argo buoys sample all the way down to 2000 meters and the heat that the CO2 increase was supposed to have caused could not be found with all these buoys:

It`s not in the atmosphere either.
Why don`t you go to Hobart Australia to the IPCC meetings that started last month and go on till September where they are trying to figure out where the "missing heat" went.
According to you

"La Nina of the past decade is a big factor, transporting heat deep into the ocean "

... the warmer water went deep down into the ocean way down past the thermocline,
(lurks there for a while and is going to re-appear soon ?)

Is it legal to smoke pot where you are ?

 

[Gadawg73]

Wouldn't it be great if warmers could grasp and understand the profound signifigance of those two statements as they relate to the AGW myth?

So all of the NASA and NOAA as well as thousands of scientists worldwide believe in a myth and their research is all bogus.
You do understand that is exactly what you are claiming. That you are right and thousands of them are outright frauds.

I suggest you use a little common sense and actually LOOK at who is saying what. NOAA DOES NOT ascribe to the AGW theory wholesale. There are significant maajorities within the agency who feel the claims are at best hyperbole and at worst outright fraud.

The same go's for NASA. GISS (a division of NASA, headed by the head warmist Hansen)
is the proponent of AGW "theory". Hansens former boss at NASA thinks he has harmed the agency.


Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist, Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen, NASA’s vocal man-made global warming fear soothsayer, has now publicly declared himself a skeptic and declared that Hansen “embarrassed NASA” with his alarming climate claims and said Hansen was “was never muzzled.” Theon joins the rapidly growing ranks of international scientists abandoning the promotion of man-made global warming fears.

“I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man made,” Theon wrote to the Minority Office at the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15, 2009. “I was, in effect, Hansen’s supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results,” Theon, the former Chief of the Climate Processes Research Program at NASA Headquarters and former Chief of the Atmospheric Dynamics & Radiation Branch explained.

“Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA’s official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind’s effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress,” Theon wrote.

http://www.qando.net/ - Hansen?s Former NASA Boss Declares Himself An AGW Skeptic

Finally, the government organisations are all in favor of the "theory" because it does two things...first it gathers ever more power to the governments involved leading eventually to a mass collectivist world government and second it takes money away from the public and gives it to the aforementioned governments so they can more easily accomplish their goals.

They all admit it too. You just have to actually read what they say amongst themselves and yes, those discussions are available.

"colectivist world government"
Your claim that NASA and NOAA want collectivist world government is total bull shit.
Very surprised you would claim such nonsense.
Oh, please, is that all you have?
The NOAA web site clearly states their position on global warming and it is clear.
Their site SPECIFICALLY states that from 1880-1995 there is clear evidence of warming and that "warming in the last 15 years is significantly faster than that of the long term (1880-1995)
And I can post dozens more if you need it that all state the same thing, from all of the research at NOAA.
From their statement on their web site titled INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE CONFIRMS GLOBAL RECORD IN INSTRUMENT RECORD

 

[Gadawg73]

I am sure the researchers at The University of South Carolina want a "collectivist world government"

Heads in the sand.

 

[Gadawg73]

Time to change the topic from "hilarious denialist failures at basic physics and logic" to some actual recent science.

Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content
Balmaseda, Trenberth, and Källén (2013)
Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content - Balmaseda - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

The whole thing is behind a paywall, but a quick summary is:

1. Warming -- as defined by less heat leaving the earth than arriving -- has definitely accelerated over the past 15 years.

2. Most of that heat has been going into the deep ocean, making it less visible in the air.

3. That confirms the solution of the "missing heat" issue, that of why the satellite measurements of heat/energy flux imbalances weren't matching air/sea surface temps.

4. The predominant La Nina of the past decade is a big factor, transporting heat deep into the ocean and bringing up cold water to chill the air. Once it flips to a strong El Nino, temps will skyrocket.

Denialists, you may now proceed with business as usual. You know, claiming all the data must be forged because you fail so hard at understanding it and because it disagrees with your very strange claims. And make sure to add some personal attacks, because that makes you so much more credible. I don't suggest you do the usual thing of running back to your political cult for instructions, because this is too new for them to have come up with any OfficialPartyResponse.

They remind me of one of my coaches years ago. Inside traps and reverses are a DE's worst nightmare if one forgets their gap responsibilities and outside reads.

"Coach, my cleats got caught in the turf" was heard more than once from a DE that had trouble with his outside reads.

"Well, then line up in your damn bare feet but be careful not to step in your own bull shit"