The Sustainability Ninja
And that’s according to NASA. Let’s see the climate change deniers argue with those nerds. “We conclude that global temperature continued to rise rapidly in the past decade” and “there has been no reduction in the global warming trend of 0.15-0.20°C/decade that began in the late 1970s.”
Here’s the full report on the NASA site.
The yearly running mean global temperature has reached a new record in 2010, and all that despite the recent minimum of solar irradiance.
Hmmmmm…
Found by Cináedh.
#60–do-ill==you say: “There is an old saying when it comes to feeding numbers into computer modals; garbage in garbage out.” ////
There is another old saying: “If you don’t like the best theory available, come up with a better one.” Explain to Jason how you can change the variable/double the amount of co2, and it will have no changes attributed to it.
And since everyone agrees co2 is a green house gas, explain how doubling it will not increase the atmospheric temp?
Dithering about the exact temp on any given day/year is rather foolish don’t you agree? The theory is about TRENDS!
And the less variable sea level continues to rise.
The variable is the sun. Scientists have put forward a recent theory that variations in the solar wind cause variations in cloud cover ie the transparency of the atmosphere. This theory has been validated by the existence of particle physics cloud chambers of 50 years back. This theory provides the best correlating set of causes/climate available.
Said theory has not been widely accepted by climate scientists.
I wonder why?
Found el nino la nina fluctuation files
google ENSO for el nino southern oscillation Two FLI animation files 72 and 50 megabytes each. they are monthly anomalies (cf 1961-1990 mean) from 1870 to 2000
MSLP mean sea level pressure, SST sea surface temperature two file for 18-35 month band and 32-88 month band? (maybe level of monitoring).
How do I distribute these?
Chris Price
pricecg44@gmail.com
ps. I infrequently read my email at google
So in summary:
a) NASA has an underlying agenda, so no data that it publishes should be trusted, so that data should be ignored.
b) The sun has the greatest influence on the earth temperature. The solar cycle should place earth at it’s coldest right now, but ignore that because we so not understand the sun well enough.
c) An increase in CO2, a proven greenhouse gas, has no influence on temperature, so ignore that.
d) There are no reliable historical sources of data, so we can not use geological, thermic, biological or measured data as a reference, so ignore that.
e) The weather last month at my house is the best indicator of global trends, so ignore any weather trends worldwide.
f) Alternate energy sources are too expensive and not worth even considering, so ignore them.
g) The majority of the scientists doing ‘pure research’ depend on the money being given to them to do that research, so ignore them.
I am so glad that I came to this site. Now I understand that I should just ignore everything I hear about climate change.. in other words, I should join the deniers and become completely and utterly ignorant.
Awake==that does about sum it up. May I copy and paste this to the upcoming threads, or wait for you to do so?
point a to g baaar baaar
human to sheople
just in case you refused to link, here the choice words in the stuff.co.nz article
In fact, again according to Niwa, the past few days had seen some of the lowest temperatures on record. Air temperatures in Taumarunui, in the central North Island, dipped to -6.8C this week, the coldest since records began in 1947. Te Kuiti and Turangi had their coldest July nights on record, and in the South Island, Blenheim experienced its second-coldest July temperature on Tuesday morning. Queenstown, at -7.2C, had its third coldest night in 139 years of records. Just for the record, Taranaki’s coldest night ever was recorded in Stratford, where the air temperature dropped to -7.5C.
egp==whether you ultimately prove to be right or wrong, a theory predicting an average trend is not affected by one, or even many, singular examples.
Your entire approach is a FAIL.
Silly Hooman.
So including all data is failure.
A successful approach is to exclude cold data, include hot data
Successful for what?!
Bobbo –
cgp’s problem is that he just “doesn’t get it”. He probably never will.
He is getting record cold temperatures in the south, and we are getting record warm temperatures in the North.
It’s all part of the bigger picture, just as the climate change models predict. More extremes, out of season. Bubbles of cold air detaching from the poles, being pushed by record warm air behind them. Extra large high pressure areas, and extra large low pressure areas.
The climate is changing, and the ‘weather’ is becoming unstable. All part of the standard climate change model.
“It is extra cold in xxx therefore global warming is false.” Duh. Never mind the bigger picture, never mind the global trend… localized weather = all you need to look at. Duh.
cgp has adapted another slow minded poster’s habit of calling people sheeple. How original! How creative! How sheeple of him.
cpg–breaking news on how contrary facts will cause certain mindsets to believe even more strongly in their falsely held positions. Your crowd?
Its one thing to be “wrong.” We all are from time to time “but” when the error is pointed out, “some” doubt should be introduced into any rational mind.
OF COURSE ALL THE DATA SHOULD BE INCLUDED. Its beyond stupid for you to take my reminder to you that the issue is one of long terms averages, and that averages include extreme data points, as any request at all to exclude any data.
Its irritating. Can’t have an honest disagreement when someone has shit for brains.
Awake, you never addressed the fudged numbers of yours that I responded to in #47. You are a hypocrite. You fudged numbers in #38 and accuse others of fudging numbers.
You also never answered the question I had in #50. Where did I post figures on solar energy besides stating they couldn’t be zero. You got to pay for some guy to at least dust the things or they will lose efficiency.
Those beautiful towers rising above those heavenly clouds at dusk are GORGEOUS!!
This is the type of paper that gives climate science a bad name, and leads me to conclude that they are playing politics rather than conducting honest science. Reading the whole paper it is filled with little attacks on the skeptics. If they want to do that, then perhaps they should engage in blogs.
That aside, let’s stick to the ways I think they are being manipulative with this paper.
1) They issue it now, because they are worried their might not be a year end record as they had predicted previously. The La Nina conditions are not as unlikely as they suggest in the paper, making a calendar year record unlikely.
However, let’s assume there will be a new record in 2010, equal to the current record of .66C, higher than the 2005 record of .62C, and the 1998 level of .56C. 1998 is the record year in some other temperature measurements, and the basis for the claim that global warming stopped in 1998. It also had an ElNino peak, and is considered a better comparison to now. This new record comes out to .8C per hundred years, when compared to 1998 or 2005, still close to saying global warming stopped in 1998, now it’s slowed.
2) Claiming that global warming is continuing, attacking the idea that global warming stopped in 1998.
To do this they calculate multi-year averages and show the results on a chart, and yup the warming trend continues. Now look at what that means and doesn’t mean. All they have established is that 2009 is warmer than 1997, 2008 is warmer than 1996, 2007 is warmer than 1995, 2006 is warmer than 1994, etc. But if you look at the single peak years, there is not much warming. The multi-year average helps them keep their claim even if the skeptics are right that global warming has stopped or slowed. It would take an additional decade for the skeptics’ claim to be validated under this metric.
3) Even assuming the multi-year averages are a valid measurement, the statement in the paper
There has been no reduction in the global warming trend of 0.15-0.20°C/decade that began in the late 1970s
has another trick to hide the decline.
Suppose the trend thru 1998 was .2C per decade. 2 decades have gone by at that point for total warming of .4C.
Now suppose global temps increased by .5C in the decade after that. Then the average is .15C. Despite a reduction in trend, they can claim no reduction in trend by using the range of .15-.2C. The existence of two decades makes it harder for the long term average to decline too much.
Let’s see what the actual numbers say using their GISTEMP data.
The trend in 1998 using five year averages is .193C/ decade, and in 2010 the trend is .179C/decade, and in 2005 it was .205C/decade
Using 1978 as a start year shows similar results. 1975-1977 show smaller differentials, as 76 and 78 have the same temp.
>Does their data conflict with NASA’s or is it just a sudden temperature spike in the last 18 months?
There data does conflict with NASA’s, and it is covered in the paper. NASA’s data had a new temperature record in 2005, while the other guys still have 1998 as the record. The main difference is warming in the Arctic with no coverage of the North Pole for the other guys. Many people like to claim NASA has better coverage, but the reality is they have weaker coverage. The paper does not make this claim, and explains the difference. They use some extrapolation to estimate temperatures for the Arctic.
Don’t know where you folks are from but here in Northern California we’ve had a wetter winter, later and more snow and a pretty cool summer compared to the last ten or fifteen years. My gardening was off by a good month because of the lateness of the spring warm up. Parts of the sierra’s are still just beginning to open up from the snow pack. Climate change? Sure, been going on for billions of years. And we haven’t seen nothing yet in our couple of measley thousand years of recorded history. The world turns and it don’t give a damn about us.
I call people sheople because I believe they have never acquired the skill of rational thought.
I certainly will never get it. I happen to disagree with IT and I boringly continuously attempt to explain and challenge IT.
Im not debating the immediate causes of polar fronts and how they are caused by sea temperatures and pressures. We all know that.
Go beyond.
A quick browse of Hanson et al’s latest BS.
did you notice figure 21 the all important one stops at 2000. The decade since is left out. When they figure out how to process this guess what, I reckon they will say that the anomalous cold data points of this decade where due to warming events just like previous post, and so we will remove them.
Damn it we must purge all these fraudsters NOW.
#75
OF COURSE ALL THE DATA SHOULD BE INCLUDED.
see figure 21 where Hanson does not include 2000 on. I suspect that the long term average went down. That happens periodically in oscillation phenomena. Now if you continue start to draw non oscillating curves on this you are really deleting data in a big way.
NO more debate from me.
Just one more…
Shit Brainy to sheople person
please show rational thought processes by responding to and relieving me of my worries about
#56 greenhouse effect fraud
#65 solar wind on atmosphere transparency
#44 PV fraud 100/1 or worse 200/1 cost ratios and where is the other party who pays those subsidies