If the word cold was replaced with warm or hot, I can only imagine what the warmists would be posting today

[rushmc 23]

Local News

Cold weather endangers sea creatures


http://www.islandpacket.com/2010/12/26/1490923/cold-weather-endangers-sea-creatures.html#


Or if this article said it was the first time without snow since 188x

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9KBLRDG0&show_article=1

http://www.breitbart.tv/atlantas-first-white-christmas-since-1862/

I know I know
this is weather not climate

I wish the warmists could remember that fact too

Oh and I know that AGW is causing this too

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[popsjumper 2]

I can hear Sam Kinison now...

All you freakin' starfish!
MOVE! YOU LIVE IN A FREEZER!


It's gotta be all that polar ice that's melting,right?

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[rushmc 23]

Quote

I can hear Sam Kinison now...

All you freakin' starfish!
MOVE! YOU LIVE IN A FREEZER!


It's gotta be all that polar ice that's melting,right?

A good a reason as I have heard lately

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Oh and I know that AGW is causing this too

That's why it's "climate change" now. It's hard to convince people that it's "global warming" when it's not warming.

--
Rob

[skiskyrock 0]

Quote

Quote

Oh and I know that AGW is causing this too

That's why it's "climate change" now. It's hard to convince people that it's "global warming" when it's not warming.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was established in 1988, so the use of the term "climate change" is hardly recent:

http://www.ipccfacts.org/history.html

Since we have just completed the warmest meteorological year:

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/12/nasa-2010-meteorological-year-wa.html

and decade:

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/temp-analysis-2009.html

on record, I can't see how you come to the conclusion it isn't warming.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I can't see how you come to the conclusion it isn't warming

Because the trend is essentially flat for the last decade, even though CO2 is continually rising?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[skiskyrock 0]

Quote

Quote

I can't see how you come to the conclusion it isn't warming

Because the trend is essentially flat for the last decade, even though CO2 is continually rising?

30 years is the typical period used to define temperature trends, since it is hard to get a significant regression for shorter periods. I have plotted the data from the woodfortrees site for 1980-present for the GIStemp land ocean index, the HADCRU global series, and the UAH satellite measurements and all 30 year trends are strongly positive.
I also plotted trends for 2001-present and 1998 to present. The only the HADCRU data could be said to be flat over the last decade, but this data set omits arctic warming. I'd have to say your conclusion on warming isn't robust.

The plots are anomaly in degrees C vs time in years.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

30 years is the typical period used to define temperature trends, since it is hard to get a significant regression for shorter periods. I have plotted the data from the woodfortrees site for 1980-present for the GIStemp land ocean index, the HADCRU global series, and the UAH satellite measurements and all 30 year trends are strongly positive.

Over the last 30 years, yes they are. Of course, given all the 'adjustments' to the data, I don't see how it *couldn't* be.

Quote

I also plotted trends for 2001-present and 1998 to present. The only the HADCRU data could be said to be flat over the last decade, but this data set omits arctic warming.

Really? HADCRUT GLOBAL mean omits arctic warming? Please, do tell how a GLOBAL mean 'omits arctic warming'.

Quote

I'd have to say your conclusion on warming isn't robust.

Care to actually respond to my point - you know, temperature remaining flat even though CO2 is continually rising?

For that matter, kindly explain the Medieval, Roman and Minoan Warm Periods in re: CO2.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[skiskyrock 0]

Quote

Quote

30 years is the typical period used to define temperature trends, since it is hard to get a significant regression for shorter periods. I have plotted the data from the woodfortrees site for 1980-present for the GIStemp land ocean index, the HADCRU global series, and the UAH satellite measurements and all 30 year trends are strongly positive.

Over the last 30 years, yes they are. Of course, given all the 'adjustments' to the data, I don't see how it *couldn't* be.

Quote

I also plotted trends for 2001-present and 1998 to present. The only the HADCRU data could be said to be flat over the last decade, but this data set omits arctic warming.

Really? HADCRUT GLOBAL mean omits arctic warming? Please, do tell how a GLOBAL mean 'omits arctic warming'.

Quote

I'd have to say your conclusion on warming isn't robust.

Care to actually respond to my point - you know, temperature remaining flat even though CO2 is continually rising?

For that matter, kindly explain the Medieval, Roman and Minoan Warm Periods in re: CO2.

The HADCRUT data set handles missing data in the arctic by filling the missing values with the northern hemisphere mean temperature anomally. The GISTEMP data interpolates and extrapolates from shore stations (they have a published scientific basis for doing this). Effectively the GISTEMP method assumes that missing data will be closer to data in adjacent grids than to the overall hemisphere mean.

If you don't like the actual temperature data I provided, take a look at the UAH data set, which is obtained by satellite measurement. If you don't like the corrections to the GISTEMP land ocean do your own. If that's all it takes to overturn global warming, I'm sure it would be easy to come up with a better method and get it peer reviewed and published.

As to my not addressing your original point, I just showed you that your conclusions don't match the available data, and even if they did the time period you discuss is too short to reach a statistically valid conclusion.

CO2 is not the only driver of climate. If the warm periods you mention are not global in extent and globally synchronous they are probably due to other factors. Even if they occur at the same time and are synchronous, they could be due to other factors such as increased solar irradiance or fewer volcanic eruptions.

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

CO2 is not the only driver of climate. If the warm periods you mention are not global in extent and globally synchronous they are probably due to other factors. Even if they occur at the same time and are synchronous, they could be due to other factors such as increased solar irradiance or fewer volcanic eruptions.

If that is the case then - why wouldn't it be the case now? Why wouldn't your model of "CO2 isn't the only driver of limate" be universally accepted throughout?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[skiskyrock 0]

Quote

Quote

CO2 is not the only driver of climate. If the warm periods you mention are not global in extent and globally synchronous they are probably due to other factors. Even if they occur at the same time and are synchronous, they could be due to other factors such as increased solar irradiance or fewer volcanic eruptions.

If that is the case then - why wouldn't it be the case now? Why wouldn't your model of "CO2 isn't the only driver of limate" be universally accepted throughout?

It is universally accepted. I've never seen anyone credible say it isn't. However we can now measure the other factors and know whether they do or don't apply in this case.

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

Quote

CO2 is not the only driver of climate. If the warm periods you mention are not global in extent and globally synchronous they are probably due to other factors. Even if they occur at the same time and are synchronous, they could be due to other factors such as increased solar irradiance or fewer volcanic eruptions.

If that is the case then - why wouldn't it be the case now? Why wouldn't your model of "CO2 isn't the only driver of limate" be universally accepted throughout?

It is universally accepted. I've never seen anyone credible say it isn't. However we can now measure the other factors and know whether they do or don't apply in this case.

Well yeah - you can after the numbers get thier day at the spa, getting thier massage.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

CO2 is not the only driver of climate. If the warm periods you mention are not global in extent and globally synchronous they are probably due to other factors. Even if they occur at the same time and are synchronous, they could be due to other factors such as increased solar irradiance or fewer volcanic eruptions.

If that is the case then - why wouldn't it be the case now? Why wouldn't your model of "CO2 isn't the only driver of limate" be universally accepted throughout?

It is universally accepted. I've never seen anyone credible say it isn't. However we can now measure the other factors and know whether they do or don't apply in this case.

Well yeah - you can after the numbers get thier day at the spa, getting thier massage.

the AGW folks lost me (I was skeptical but hadn't made up my mind) a long time ago.
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/

--
Rob

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

The HADCRUT data set handles missing data in the arctic by filling the missing values with the northern hemisphere mean temperature anomally. The GISTEMP data interpolates and extrapolates from shore stations (they have a published scientific basis for doing this). Effectively the GISTEMP method assumes that missing data will be closer to data in adjacent grids than to the overall hemisphere mean.

So they're both making a best guess.

Quote

If you don't like the actual temperature data I provided, take a look at the UAH data set, which is obtained by satellite measurement.

Tropical data, yes.

Quote

If you don't like the corrections to the GISTEMP land ocean do your own.

So touchy.

Quote

If that's all it takes to overturn global warming, I'm sure it would be easy to come up with a better method and get it peer reviewed and published.

That's starting to happen now, no thanks to the efforts of Mann and others to block them.

Quote

As to my not addressing your original point, I just showed you that your conclusions don't match the available data, and even if they did the time period you discuss is too short to reach a statistically valid conclusion.

Nice tapdance - lets you dodge the CO2 rising while temps don't quite nicely.

Quote

CO2 is not the only driver of climate.

GISS and others say that CO2 is the main driver. Skeptics are, well...skeptical.

Quote

If the warm periods you mention are not global in extent and globally synchronous they are probably due to other factors.

The MWP has been confirmed across the globe...can't speak for the others.

Quote

Even if they occur at the same time and are synchronous, they could be due to other factors such as increased solar irradiance or fewer volcanic eruptions.

So the science isn't as settled as some claim?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706