Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Obviously this has got denier's panties in a twist, so they go back to the great conspiracy lie....Really, you think the daily caller is a reputable source?
This lady is but I already know you have your panties in a twist over her but nevertheless here it is, an excerpt from NOAA's latest adjustment and J. Curry's take on it:
Quote:
The greatest changes in the new NOAA surface temperature analysis is to the ocean temperatures since 1998. This seems rather ironic, since this is the period where there is the greatest coverage of data with the highest quality of measurements – ARGO buoys and satellites don’t show a warming trend. Nevertheless, the NOAA team finds a substantial increase in the ocean surface temperature anomaly trend since 1998. In my opinion, the gold standard dataset for global ocean surface temperatures is the UK dataset, HadSST3. A review of the uncertainties is given in this paper by John Kennedy http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst3/uncertainty.html. Note, the UK group has dealt with the same issues raised by the NOAA team. I personally see no reason to the use the NOAA ERSST dataset, I do not see any evidence that the NOAA group has done anywhere near as careful a job as the UK group in processing the ocean temperatures. I am also unconvinced by NOAA’s gap filling in the Arctic, and in my opinion this introduces substantial error into their analysis. I addressed the issue of gap filling in the Arctic in this recent publication: Curry JA, 2014: Climate science: Uncertain temperature trends. Nature Geoscience, 7, 83-84.
And this excerpt from Lindzen, another of those "heathens" that don't bow down to AGW scripture:
Quote:
The treatment of the buoy sea-surface temperature (SST) data was guaranteed to put a warming trend in recent data. They were adjusted upwards 0.12°C to make them “homogeneous” with the longer-running temperature records taken from engine intake channels in marine vessels. As has been acknowledged by numerous scientists, the engine intake data are clearly contaminated by heat conduction from the structure, and they were never intended for scientific use.
Thus, NOAA got the desired result to shriek that AGW is continuing and is fodder for the idiot infesting the WH for political gain.
Did you make these graphs?...Anybody can use wood for trees to make linear plots.
All I plugged in were the dates 1996 and 2001 using the RSS satellite data.
So are you suggesting that the data is incorrect?
Tell me how do the satellite measurements jive with your excerpt that the rate of warming over the last 15 years is the same as during the last half of the 20th century?
Quote:
The rate of global warming during the last 15 years has been as fast as the warming seen during the last half of the 20th Century,
All I plugged in were the dates 1996 and 2001 using the RSS satellite data.
So are you suggesting that the data is incorrect?
Tell me how do the satellite measurements jive with your excerpt that the rate of warming over the last 15 years is the same as during the last half of the 20th century?
He genuflects to the church of global warming and praises the acolytes while disregarding dissension to which he cries blasphemy.
To be fair, it says the the United States is in a cooling trend, but not the world. US cooling is not global cooling, and global temperatures have at best been staying mostly flat, and at worst rising slowly.
So yeah, the PLANET is not cooling. So this thread is absolutely awful. I'm hoping by pointing this out, we can all let this thread die.
But if the USA would just cut its CO2 emissions, it would cure the whole world. Yeah.
To be fair, it says the the United States is in a cooling trend, but not the world. US cooling is not global cooling, and global temperatures have at best been staying mostly flat, and at worst rising slowly.
So yeah, the PLANET is not cooling. So this thread is absolutely awful. I'm hoping by pointing this out, we can all let this thread die.
So did someone place a geodesic dome over the US and thus defy the laws of thermodynamics?
To be fair, it says the the United States is in a cooling trend, but not the world. US cooling is not global cooling, and global temperatures have at best been staying mostly flat, and at worst rising slowly.
So yeah, the PLANET is not cooling. So this thread is absolutely awful. I'm hoping by pointing this out, we can all let this thread die.
As with human caused global warming all temps are taken together so US cooling also has to be included to adjust average global temp.
Anthony Watts is a lap dog of the Heartland Institute, which engages in the promotion of obsfucation of scientific research at the behest of their corporate contributors.
That still didn't answer my question.
Does he say there is no climate change or that man doesn't drive it?
June 4th 2015.... The rate of global warming during the last 15 years has been as fast as the warming seen during the last half of the 20th Century, according to new study published in Science this month by scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). A Pause In Global Warming? Not Really - Forbes
Plus this... There is strong evidence that global sea level is now rising at an increased rate and will continue to rise during this century. Is sea level rising?
As I said, it depends on how you clump the years together, and what data you base it on. The image from your link is this.
It connects a line from ~1950 until 2014, and declares that the trajectory of warming hasn't changed.
The problem is, if you pull out practically any other year, then the trajectory has changed. If you go from ~1940 till today, there is a completely different line. If you go from ~1980 till today, there is a completely different line. And if you go from 1880 till today, there is another line.
Regardless, global-warming scientists don't believe that the warming from ~1910 to ~1940 was caused by CO2. But the warming between 1910 and 1940, is roughly of the same magnitude of the warming between 1980 and 2010.
And as someone else mentioned, all of this warming is contingent on what gauges you use. The satellite data is a lot different than the ground-based thermostats. It seems like a lot of the ground-based thermostats seem to be placed poorly, or are being tampered with.
Going off satellite data, the supposed global-warming is even less impressive, and could easily fall into the realm of natural variability.
That doesn't mean I'm a "denier". I think humans are probably causing some change. But the global-warming doomsdayers need to stick to reality, otherwise people just see you as a joke.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kracer
As with human caused global warming all temps are taken together so US cooling also has to be included to adjust average global temp.
US temperatures are considered in "global temperatures". Even with US cooling, global temps have largely remained flat, or slightly risen, depending on your starting and ending points, and which data you believe is more accurate.
Last edited by Redshadowz; 06-15-2015 at 04:47 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
