warmest January on record

[Mr.Fitnah]

Oh. Did I break your little thread?

 

[SFC Ollie]

Oh. Did I break your little thread?

Oh you viscous thread killer you.

 

[edthecynic]

"The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change," said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC. The doubts of Christy and a number of other researchers focus on the thousands of weather stations around the world, which have been used to collect temperature data over the past 150 years.

These stations, they believe, have been seriously compromised by factors such as urbanization, changes in land use and, in many cases, being moved from site to site. Christy has published research papers looking at these effects in three different regions: east Africa, California and Alabama.

"The story is the same for each one," he said. "The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development."

FOXNews.com - World May Not Be Warming, Say Scientists

This is the same John Christy at UAH who got caught red-handed cooking the satellite data by using the wrong sign to correct for diurnal satellite drift to make the data read colder. He has less credibility than Faux news, which has none. To believe it was an honest mistake you'd have to believe that an expert on satellite data doesn't know what sign to use.

 

[saveliberty]

Sure you want to stand by the, when a scientist cooks the data don't believe him approach? I'm good with it, but it is going to really mess up your guys bad.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I have not seen evidence I would accept as definative on this, however, should it be the case, Maine will continue to get colder winters even as the rest of us warm up.

The rest of us aren't warming up. Our winters in the south have been getting colder.

 

[SFC Ollie]

"The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change," said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC. The doubts of Christy and a number of other researchers focus on the thousands of weather stations around the world, which have been used to collect temperature data over the past 150 years.

These stations, they believe, have been seriously compromised by factors such as urbanization, changes in land use and, in many cases, being moved from site to site. Christy has published research papers looking at these effects in three different regions: east Africa, California and Alabama.

"The story is the same for each one," he said. "The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development."

FOXNews.com - World May Not Be Warming, Say Scientists

This is the same John Christy at UAH who got caught red-handed cooking the satellite data by using the wrong sign to correct for diurnal satellite drift to make the data read colder. He has less credibility than Faux news, which has none. To believe it was an honest mistake you'd have to believe that an expert on satellite data doesn't know what sign to use.

Yes it's the same guy, And seems as though he is trying to make excuses now to cover his own ass. But maybe that's just the way I see it. At any rate, more and more doubt cast upon global warming.

 

[Oddball]

Sure you want to stand by the, when a scientist cooks the data don't believe him approach? I'm good with it, but it is going to really mess up your guys bad.

Seems they're whistling past the corpse of CRU & IPCC.

 

[jeffrockit]

Ahh... everyone has trouble seeing beyone the end of their noses.

I had a bit cooler than normal January, however the word for the day kiddies is GLOBAL.

And China has had record snowfall. Is China included in the word of the day?

 

[Old Rocks]

The data for January 2010 is from Dr. Roy Spencer, a well known warmer. LOL

 

[Old Rocks]

Ahh... everyone has trouble seeing beyone the end of their noses.

I had a bit cooler than normal January, however the word for the day kiddies is GLOBAL.

And China has had record snowfall. Is China included in the word of the day?

Record snowfall is a precipitation event. What was the temperature that accompanied that snowfall? If the temperature was in the normal range for the area, then that is what is registered for taking the global record. In fact, the temperature in the colder part of China for this time of year could be significantly higher than normal, and they could still get a record snowfall.

 

[Old Rocks]

Hmmm....... All the top ten months in the satellite record seem to have occurred in and since 1998. And did Christy state that the ocean was warmer? Goodness sakes, he must be mistaken. He needs to consult some of the regulars here that have stated in no uncertain terms that the oceans are cooling.


Global Temperature Trend Update - February, 2010 - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine

Notes on data released Feb. 10, 2010:

A large El Nino Pacific Ocean warming event exposed the atmosphere to enough extra heat energy to cause the warmest January and the third warmest month overall in 32 years, and the warmest month in almost a decade (compared to seasonal norms), according to Dr. John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center (ESSC) at The University of Alabama in Huntsville.

"This has the potential of breaking the records set in February and April 1998, during the 'El Nino of the Century,'" Christy said. "I looked at sea surface temperatures in the Central Pacific and it wasn't as warm as 1998, but what is there is spread out further than it was in 1998. That exposes the atmosphere to a lot of extra heat."

Hottest months in the satellite record
(Compared to seasonal norms)
Apr 1998 +0.76 C
Feb 1998 +0.76 C
Jan 2010* +0.72 C
May 1998 +0.65 C
Jan 2007 +0.59 C
Jan 1998 +0.58 C
Jun 1998 +0.57 C
Mar 1998 +0.53 C
Jul 1998 +0.52 C
Aug 1998 +0.51 C
Nov 2009 +0.50 C
Jan 2005 +0.49 C

 

[code1211]

Right now.

Low Total Solar Irradiance.

Low Sunpspots.

El Nino.

A 40% increase in CO2, a 150% increase in CH4, and a bunch of really nasty industrial GHGs.

So far this year, record temperatures globally. Looks like the latter two factors cancelled out the effect of the sun.

Now, let us look at the prior two years, 2008, and 2007.

Low TSI.

Low Sunspot activity.

Strong and persistant La Nina.

40% increase in CO2. 150% increase in CH4. And some really nasty industrial GHGs.

So three out of four factors say that we should have had a couple of really cold years. But both years rank among the ten warmest on record.

So what happened PP? Why did not the solar effect overpower the GHG effect?

I'm not at all sure. It's warmer in August than it is in June in Indiana and yet the daily duration of Sun light is shorter and the intensity is lower.

It could be that Global relationships are like this. Maybe there are forces at work that are not yet understood that create cooling and warming that we haven't yet got a grasp of.

It could be that, like the warmth of August in Indiana, a lower intensity of heat applied to a warmer globe provides the same or greater warming. Of course, this is just one guy looking at what's happening and seeing what the least complex solution might be.

Has anyone seen Occam's Razor? I think I need a shave.

"when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better."

Apologies to Newton, Einstien and Hawking who all used this razor before me. Golly, I wonder, if I cut myself shaving, might I become brilliant?

 

[code1211]

Ahh... everyone has trouble seeing beyone the end of their noses.

I had a bit cooler than normal January, however the word for the day kiddies is GLOBAL.

The word of the day is cyclical

Really?

Sure, cyclical, as in spirally upward.

Come on, Dave, give us some good science that states that we are not changing the climate. Show us that the Ice Caps are not melting. The the area of alpine glaciers is not shrinking rapidly and at an accelerating rate.You are good at flapping yap, but never back up what you state with any real data.

You stated above that there are two questions. The first was whether or not it is warming and the second asking what the cause(s) might be.

Now you blend the questions again as if they are the same question. They are not.

You now ask Dave to prove a negative.

It is up to those who claim that a specific effect is the result of a specific cause to do the proving. You are saying that CO2 is THE cause of Global warming and that it is the CO2 produced by Man that is the at the root of this current warming and that by reducing the CO2 produced by Man, any warming effect can be reduced and we can return to a Utopian past that will cure all ills.

Please explain how the CO2 produced by Man during and after the Industrial Revolution started the current warming trend that was begun between 1600 and 1700.

A rational explanation of how the future causes the past will be required.

 

[code1211]

No the word for the day is Troposphere. We do not live in it.

Um....Yes we do.

He is not discussing ground temperatures and you know it, he is discussing temperatures higher then that. They can not keep the warming trend going with ground readings so are resorting to this bullshit.

The ground readings are notoriously "adjusted" for accuracy. I've often wondered why, if these readings are so scientifically accurate, they must be adjusted to make them accurate. They are also heavily weighted toward population centers and liberally apply estimates for areas in which there are no ground staions.

The satellite readings are good enough that the ground station adjusted and homogenized readings are set against them to find accuracy. Given all of the faults with gathering this type of data, I like the satellite temps the best. More instant and less tampered.

I do find it interesting that NASA relies more heavily on ground stations than on satellite data. This might explain why NASA is getting out of the Space Flight Business. Could it be that they just don't like space that much?

 

[Old Rocks]

A rational explanation of your irrationality is not possible.

I have repeatedly posted the American Institute of Physics site that explains the history of the scientific investigations into how CO2 and other GHGs work. But for newbies, and any who really care for the science behind global warming, here it is again;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Now we know how many giga-tons of CO2 we put into the atmosphere every year from the records of coal, oil, and natural gas producers. We know how much the CO2 has increased and decreased over the last 650,000 years from ice cores in the Antarctic and Greenland. We have presently stations all over earth measuring on a daily basis the amount of CO2 and other GHGs in the atmosphere.

Through isotopic measurements, we know what percentage of the present CO2 in the atmosphere is created by the burning of fossil fuels. And we are measuring the increase in the CO2 in the ocean, also. And measuring the increase in acidity that is already starting to endanger the base of the food chain in the oceans.

As far as you idiocy about returning to a utopia is concerned, one can simply put that sort of shit down to someone without an adaquete arguement.

No, even if we could cease to put any GHGs into the atmosphere right now, we would still have 30 to 50 years of warming in the pipes due to the inertia in the system. All we can do now is to try to prevent further increases, and reduce our input to a level that nature can handle. Should we have already passed a major tipping point, then even that will not prevent the worst from happening. PETM.

 

[Old Rocks]

Um....Yes we do.

He is not discussing ground temperatures and you know it, he is discussing temperatures higher then that. They can not keep the warming trend going with ground readings so are resorting to this bullshit.

The ground readings are notoriously "adjusted" for accuracy. I've often wondered why, if these readings are so scientifically accurate, they must be adjusted to make them accurate. They are also heavily weighted toward population centers and liberally apply estimates for areas in which there are no ground staions.

The satellite readings are good enough that the ground station adjusted and homogenized readings are set against them to find accuracy. Given all of the faults with gathering this type of data, I like the satellite temps the best. More instant and less tampered.

I do find it interesting that NASA relies more heavily on ground stations than on satellite data. This might explain why NASA is getting out of the Space Flight Business. Could it be that they just don't like space that much?

Could it be that you don't look at the data?

Check a new thread that has all the differant data sets compared. It is in this environment section.

 

[code1211]

He is not discussing ground temperatures and you know it, he is discussing temperatures higher then that. They can not keep the warming trend going with ground readings so are resorting to this bullshit.

He's also using numbers that have deliberately excluded stations at higher altitudes, while including measurements taken from obvious heat islands.....That's how the frauds have jimmied the numbers.

Still, the troposphere is where it is.

When the frauds Christy and Spencer jimmied the Troposphere numbers by using the opposite sign to "correct" for diurnal satellite drift, the deniers were claiming UAH satellite Troposphere data was the ONLY accurate data. Now that the correct sign is being used and the satellite data matches exactly the surface data, Troposphere data is suddenly suspect even though there are no heat islands in satellites.

So how do you explain the nearly exact correlation between surface data and satellite data?

Have the satellite numbers currently and in the past been corrected to the point at which you now acknowledge them to be accurate?

Is the absolute correlation between the rises and falls of satellite data and ground station data evidence that the ground stations or the satellites or both are right or wrong?

 

[Old Rocks]

climate4you GlobalTemperatures

 

[Old Rocks]

He's also using numbers that have deliberately excluded stations at higher altitudes, while including measurements taken from obvious heat islands.....That's how the frauds have jimmied the numbers.

Still, the troposphere is where it is.

When the frauds Christy and Spencer jimmied the Troposphere numbers by using the opposite sign to "correct" for diurnal satellite drift, the deniers were claiming UAH satellite Troposphere data was the ONLY accurate data. Now that the correct sign is being used and the satellite data matches exactly the surface data, Troposphere data is suddenly suspect even though there are no heat islands in satellites.

So how do you explain the nearly exact correlation between surface data and satellite data?

Have the satellite numbers currently and in the past been corrected to the point at which you now acknowledge them to be accurate?

Is the absolute correlation between the rises and falls of satellite data and ground station data evidence that the ground stations or the satellites or both are right or wrong?

Since both show a strong warming, are the differances that revelant?

 

[code1211]

AOL Search

The global-average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly soared to +0.72 deg. C in
January, 2010. This is the warmest January in the 32-year satellite-based data record.

The tropics and Northern and Southern Hemispheres were all well above normal, especially the tropics where El Nino conditions persist. Note the global-average warmth is approaching the warmth reached during the 1997-98 El Nino, which peaked in February of 1998.

This record warmth will seem strange to those who have experienced an unusually cold winter. While I have not checked into this, my first guess is that the atmospheric general circulation this winter has become unusually land-locked, allowing cold air masses to intensify over the major Northern Hemispheric land masses more than usual. Note this ALSO means that not as much cold air is flowing over and cooling the ocean surface compared to normal. Nevertheless, we will double check our calculations to make sure we have not make some sort of Y2.01K error (insert smiley). I will also check the AMSR-E sea surface temperatures, which have also been running unusually warm.
A very warm January, for sure.

So if we all just agree to turn control of our lives over to gov and pay more taxes, they can fix this, right?
The gov, once it has taken our freedoms, will see to it that we all live in grass huts and forget how to read and what science is. That way we will not care what "global warming" is, and they will have total power (which they will use to live "above" everyone else). Just another "trust me" ponzi scheme that liberals are willing to put all our apples in the same basket, because they will not commit idiocy on their own (if they did, they would have poured Al Gore's millions into proving man could make a difference in the climate).
If you have NO power over the climate, why make yourself panic (isn’t that “fear-mongering”?) over the situation. Control what you can in your own environment, volunteer to help others with theirs, that is all you can do. Do not give your freedom to a gov that cares nothing about the climate (other than it interfering with photo ops), in exchange for a FALSE sense of security.

If it was really as bad as “they” say, why do you think “they” are still burning massive quantities of fuels for “fun trips” and living in mansions that use more power in days than an average American family uses in one year?

Please answer that last question.

For the same reason that cigarettes and booze are still legal. You can't tax what doesn't exist or is illegal.