UN says 2001-2010 decade shows faster warming trend

Jul 03, 2013 by John Heilprin
People stand on roofs as their homes are seen inundated by floodwaters in Vijaywada, about 270 kilometers (169 miles) southeast from Hyderabad, India, Friday, Sept. 23, 2005. Health workers distributed food, medicine and drinking water Friday to thousands of homeless people in southwestern India where monsoon rains have killed 74 people over the last three days. (AP Photo, File)

Global warming accelerated since the 1970s and broke more countries' temperature records than ever before in the first decade of the new millennium, U.N. climate experts said Wednesday.

A new analysis from the World Meteorological Organization says average land and from 2001 to 2010 rose above the previous decade, and were almost a half-degree Celsius above the 1961-1990 global average.

The decade ending in 2010 was an unprecedented era of climate extremes, the agency said, evidenced by heat waves in Europe and Russia, droughts in the Amazon Basin, Australia and East Africa, and huge storms like Tropical Cyclone Nargis and Hurricane Katrina.

Data from 139 nations show that droughts like those in Australia, East Africa and the Amazon Basin affected the most people worldwide. But it was the hugely destructive and deadly floods such as those in Pakistan, Australia, Africa, India and Eastern Europe that were the most frequent .

Experts say a decade is about the minimum length of time to study when it comes to spotting climate change.

From 1971 to 2010, rose by an average rate of 0.17 degrees Celsius per decade. But going back to 1880, the average increase was .062 percent degrees Celsius per decade.

In this Sept. 10, 2008 file photo girls hold hands to keep their balance as they walk the rails of flooded train tracks in Thiaroye Sur Mer, on the outskirts of Dakar, Senegal Wednesday, Sept. 10, 2008. U.N. climate experts say global warming accelerated since the 1970s, breaking more countries' temperature records than ever before. The World Meteorological Organization's analysis Wednesday, July 3, 2013 calls the first decade of the new millennium an unprecedented era of climate extremes ranging from heat waves in Europe and Russia, to droughts in the Amazon Basin, Australia and East Africa, to huge storms like Tropical Cyclone Nargis and Hurricane Katrina.(AP Photo/Rebecca Blackwell, File)

The pace also picked up in recent decades. Average temperatures were 0.21 degrees Celsius warmer this past decade than from 1991 to 2000, which were in turn 0.14 degrees Celsius warmer than from 1981 to 1990.

Natural cycles between atmosphere and oceans make some years cooler than others, but during the past decade there was no major event associated with El Nino, the phenomenon characterized by unusually warm temperatures in the equatorial Pacific Ocean. Much of the decade was affected by the cooling La Nina, which comes from unusually cool temperatures there, or neutral conditions.

This Aug. 14, 2010 file photo shows an aerial view of the flooded Rohjan area in southern Pakistan. U.N. climate experts say global warming accelerated since the 1970s, breaking more countries' temperature records than ever before. The World Meteorological Organization's analysis Wednesday, July 3, 2013 calls the first decade of the new millennium an unprecedented era of climate extremes ranging from heat waves in Europe and Russia, to droughts in the Amazon Basin, Australia and East Africa, to huge storms like Tropical Cyclone Nargis and Hurricane Katrina.(AP Photo/Khalid Tanveer, File)

Given those circumstances, WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud says the data doesn't support the notion among some in the scientific community of a slowdown, or lull, in the pace of planetary warming in recent years.

"The last decade was the warmest, by a significant margin," he said. "If anything we should not talk about the plateau, we should talk about the acceleration."

This Aug. 29, 2005 file photo provided by NOAA shows a satellite image of Hurricane Katrina. U.N. climate experts say global warming accelerated since the 1970s, breaking more countries' temperature records than ever before. The World Meteorological Organization's analysis Wednesday, July 3, 2013 calls the first decade of the new millennium an unprecedented era of climate extremes ranging from heat waves in Europe and Russia, to droughts in the Amazon Basin, Australia and East Africa, to huge storms like Tropical Cyclone Nargis and Hurricane Katrina. (AP Photo/NOAA, File)

Jarraud says the data show warming accelerated between 1971 and 2010, with the past two decades increasing at rates never seen before amid rising concentrations of industrial gases that trap heat in the atmosphere like a greenhouse.

This Jan. 16, 2011 file photo shows an aerial view of a neighborhood affected by landslides in Nova Friburgo, Brazil U.N. climate experts say global warming accelerated since the 1970s, breaking more countries' temperature records than ever before. The World Meteorological Organization's analysis Wednesday, July 3, 2013 calls the first decade of the new millennium an unprecedented era of climate extremes ranging from heat waves in Europe and Russia, to droughts in the Amazon Basin, Australia and East Africa, to huge storms like Tropical Cyclone Nargis and Hurricane Katrina. (AP Photo/Felipe Dana, File)

By the end of 2010, the report shows, atmospheric concentrations of some of the chief warming gases from fossil fuel burning and other human actions were far higher than at the start of the industrial era in 1750. Carbon dioxide concentrations measured in the air around the world rose 39 percent since then; methane rose 158 percent; and nitrous oxide was up 20 percent.

Explore further: White House warns climate inaction could cost US billions

4.2 /5 (30 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

2001-2010 warmest decade on record: WMO

Mar 23, 2012

Climate change has accelerated in the past decade, the UN weather agency said Friday, releasing data showing that 2001 to 2010 was the warmest decade on record.

Australia to become hotter, drier: climate report

Mar 14, 2012

Australia's climate is warming at an alarming rate and is set to become drier despite recent record floods, scientists said in a report that warns of increased drought and fiercer storms.

Recommended for you

Underwater elephants

13 hours ago

In the high-tech world of science, researchers sometimes need to get back to basics. UC Santa Barbara's Douglas McCauley did just that to study the impacts of the bumphead parrotfish (Bolbometopon muricatum) on cor ...

User comments : 135

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

axemaster
3.8 / 5 (18) Jul 03, 2013
Oh boy, I can only wait for the silly pseudoscientists to start swarming all over this article...
deatopmg
1.9 / 5 (27) Jul 03, 2013
@axemaster I am a real scientist and I am jumping all over these baldfaced lies. You can believe what you want but your beliefs are not based on the whole truth.

This cherry picked data is from the universe of global data which shows no warming, reduced hurricane/cyclones, reduced extreme weather during the same time period.

This is about money,, control, and the official religion of the left; NOT the truth?

JohnGee
3.4 / 5 (23) Jul 03, 2013
I am a real scientist
Are you a climatologist?
deatopmg
1.8 / 5 (26) Jul 03, 2013
@ JohnGee - Thank God, no!

BTW - Did you mean climastrologist?
JohnGee
3.4 / 5 (23) Jul 03, 2013
No, but I'm guessing you're an asstrologist. Since you aren't a climatologist, you are a layman in this topic.
axemaster
4.5 / 5 (15) Jul 03, 2013
Just a disclaimer - I'm not a climatologist either. But I am at least a physicist, so I understand the essentials even if I'm not well versed in the fine details.
Claudius
1.7 / 5 (23) Jul 03, 2013
Just a disclaimer - I'm not a climatologist either. But I am at least a physicist, so I understand the essentials even if I'm not well versed in the fine details.


So as a physicist, you must agree with one of your colleagues: Qing-Bin Lu (https://uwaterloo...-bin-lu)

Who recently published this: "My calculations of CFC greenhouse effect show that there was global warming by about 0.6 °C from 1950 to 2002, but the earth has actually cooled since 2002."
runrig
3.9 / 5 (18) Jul 03, 2013
Just a disclaimer - I'm not a climatologist either. But I am at least a physicist, so I understand the essentials even if I'm not well versed in the fine details.


So as a physicist, you must agree with one of your colleagues: Qing-Bin Lu (https://uwaterloo...-bin-lu)

Who recently published this: "My calculations of CFC greenhouse effect show that there was global warming by about 0.6 °C from 1950 to 2002, but the earth has actually cooled since 2002."


Claudius:
Correlation is not causation.
Give me the causation and I will consider it. CFC's.
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (13) Jul 03, 2013
CFCs are accounted for in the Global Circulation Models I am aware of (as are all other gases). IPCC has a section devoted to them in their summaries along with their warming potentials.
Claudius
2 / 5 (21) Jul 03, 2013
I am a real scientist
Are you a climatologist?


Or, if a physicist isn't qualified, how about a climatologist?

"At present, however, the warming is taking a break," confirms meteorologist Mojib Latif of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in the northern German city of Kiel. Latif, one of Germany's best-known climatologists, says that the temperature curve has reached a plateau. "There can be no argument about that," he says. "We have to face that fact."
Claudius
2 / 5 (21) Jul 03, 2013


Claudius:
Correlation is not causation.
Give me the causation and I will consider it. CFC's.


and

CFCs are accounted for


You missed the point. Leave out the CFCs for this discussion, look at the rest of the quote: "... the earth has actually cooled since 2002."
Claudius
1.9 / 5 (22) Jul 03, 2013
Or this by another climatologist:

"It cannot be denied that this (the recent lack of warming) is one of the hottest issues in the scientific community," says Jochem Marotzke, director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg. "We don't really know why this stagnation is taking place at this point."
Claudius
1.9 / 5 (22) Jul 03, 2013
Another climatologist on the "plateau" in warming:

"The data does suggest a plateau"

- Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia
Maggnus
3.8 / 5 (17) Jul 03, 2013
@ Claudius - Still playing games I see. Surface temperatures have risen at a lower pace than forecast, but this is way offset by the rise in temperatures in the deep oceans. The pace of actual global warming has not slowed, it has in fact picked up. See here:

http://blogs.scie...es-rise/

http://www.irinne...ing-pace

Your continuing to misrepresent the positions of the scientist you quote is transparent and laughable.
Claudius
1.9 / 5 (22) Jul 03, 2013
"The trend in global surface temperatures has been nearly flat since the late 1990s despite continuing increases in the forcing due to the sum of the well-mixed greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, halocarbons, and N2O), raising questions..."

- Solomon et al. (2010)

Yes, it is laughable at how I misrepresent the positions of scientists by quoting them. Shameful, really.
Sean_W
2.2 / 5 (23) Jul 03, 2013
So when Dr. James Hansen and Reto Ruedy of NASA GISS say
"The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down in the growth rate of net climate forcing."
They are lying deniers who can't accept that the warming is accelerating. http://www.columb...2012.pdf
runrig
4.3 / 5 (18) Jul 03, 2013
From article:
"Natural cycles between atmosphere and oceans make some years cooler than others, but during the past decade there was no major event associated with El Nino, the phenomenon characterized by unusually warm temperatures in the equatorial Pacific Ocean. Much of the decade was affected by the cooling La Nina, which comes from unusually cool temperatures there, or neutral conditions.
GIVEN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud says the data doesn't support the notion among some in the scientific community of a slowdown, or lull, in the pace of planetary warming in recent years." ( my capitals ).

Not stated - but I assume the assertion is made with the cool ENSO removed.

This graph shows the effect of de-trending for ENSO:........http://blog.chron...ines.pdf

In '98 we were on the red trend line - since then we've largely been on the blue one.

El Nino will return and we'll go back to the red.
runrig
4.5 / 5 (17) Jul 03, 2013
So when Dr. James Hansen and Reto Ruedy of NASA GISS say
"The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down in the growth rate of net climate forcing."
They are lying deniers who can't accept that the warming is accelerating. http://www.columb...2012.pdf


No, they are correct and so is the WMO.

Hansen etc: "interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down in the growth rate of net climate forcing"

WMO: "La Nina,............ or neutral conditions. Given those circumstances, WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud says the data doesn't support the notion among some in the scientific community of a slowdown, or lull, in the pace of planetary warming in recent years.

A difference in emphasis but both seeing the same thing - an overlying cold cycle.

http://blog.chron...ines.pdf
djr
4.2 / 5 (20) Jul 03, 2013
This article presents the view of the WMO. The WMO "has a membership of 191 Member States and Territories"

Claudius et al can use google - and find quotes from individual scientists that appear to counter this view. A deeper look at some of those quotes appears to indicate that they do not in fact counter this view. But either way - it is so interesting to watch the community of folks bound and determined to find any information they can to counter the articles presented. Such rabid anti science is so bizarre.
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (19) Jul 04, 2013
Yes, it is laughable at how I misrepresent the positions of scientists by quoting them. Shameful, really.

Yes, it is shameful Claudius. You take a quote out of context . That's called misrepresentation.
What Dr Latif actually said:
Given all the warnings about and plans to forestall global warming, people may be surprised to find, over the next several years that, over parts of the Northern hemisphere, summers are no warmer than before, maybe even a bit cooler–and that winters are as cold, or a bit colder, than they have been in the past couple of decades.
This is because the climate may go through a temporary halt in warming. It's nothing unusual, just a natural fluctuation. It doesn't mean that global warming is not still at work, or that we no longer need to worry about global temperatures rising by as much as 6°C by the end of the century — an unprecedented warming in the history of mankind if no measures are taken to cut global carbon dioxide emissions.
cont..
Maggnus
4 / 5 (20) Jul 04, 2013
The only problem is that by considering the mean of many models of global warming, the natural fluctuations are averaged out, if they were not initialized by the current climate state, and this can be confusing.


and more:

When the anti-science crowd misquoted and misrepresented his work again this time, I called him up again, see FoxNews, WattsUpWithThat push falsehood-filled Daily Mail article on global cooling that utterly misquotes, misrepresents work of Mojib Latif and NSIDC. Latif told me: "I don't know what to do. They just make these things up."


"They just make things up." Put another way, they misrepresent what is said. Shameful, really.
Maggnus
4 / 5 (20) Jul 04, 2013
And then there is this drivel:
So as a physicist, you must agree with one of your colleagues: Qing-Bin Lu


Lets see:
A new paper by Qing-Bin Lu in the International Journal of Modern Physics B is gaining coverage for its claim that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), not CO2, is causing global warming. This sensationalist headline is often repeated with little mention that Lu's claims are not new, and have not held up to scientific scrutiny in the past. In fact, Lu has been promoting his theories about CFCs for years, and mainstream scientists have found no merit in them. Critics have said Lu makes a fundamental scientific error by confusing correlation with causation, and does not effectively challenge the physical evidence of the warming effects of CO2, a body of knowledge built up over 150 years.

and:
Frankly, the paper is a non-story. It may seem like news due to the grandiose claims of overturning the vast body of scientific evidence supporting
..cont..
Maggnus
4 / 5 (20) Jul 04, 2013
evidence supporting CO2-caused global warming, but it is very rare for a single paper to accomplish this type of feat. More often the single paper claiming to overturn the body of established scientific research is wrong. That is clearly the case for Lu (2013), which is based on assuming rather than proving the hypothesis, unphysical curve fitting, and misrepresenting the cited research.

Moreover, this study isn't new. It's actually the third Lu has published about his CFC warming hypothesis. The first two were addressed by RealClimate, two peer-reviewed published responses, Skeptical Science, and others. Andrew Gilkson at The Conversation, Climate Science Watch and Rabbett Run are also good resources for debunking Lu's latest effort.


So it would seem that Dr. Lu doesn't have much support among his colleagues. In fact, and contrary to the gist of your misrepresentation, he essentially stands alone in his views. Yes, Claudius, shameful, really.
deepsand
3.6 / 5 (25) Jul 04, 2013
Just a disclaimer - I'm not a climatologist either. But I am at least a physicist, so I understand the essentials even if I'm not well versed in the fine details.


So as a physicist, you must agree with one of your colleagues: Qing-Bin Lu (https://uwaterloo...-bin-lu)

Who recently published this: "My calculations of CFC greenhouse effect show that there was global warming by about 0.6 °C from 1950 to 2002, but the earth has actually cooled since 2002."

Guess you missed the news about Lu's claims having been debunked.
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (19) Jul 04, 2013
How much do you want to bet that the actual meaning of the partial quote you posted means something very different from what Dr Susan Solomon and her colleagues intended when the whole quote is taken in context Claudius? How badly did your post misrepresent the science in her paper?

Lets see, this is a good summary of the science: http://www.skepti...ming.htm

So, already on a prima facie basis, it would seem Dr Solomon is a firm believer that human caused global warming is happening, That view would seem to be supported by her position on the IPCC panel, along with her authorship of a paper decrying the lack of action being taken by government in dealing with global warming, Not looking good so far Claudius.

What is looking clear, is that the discussion Ms Solomon invoked with her paper has very little to do with overall global warming. Again, contrary to the misrepresented way you have portrayed it. Yes, shameful indeed.
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (21) Jul 04, 2013
Technically, this article is correct in stating the 2001-2010 decade is warmer than previous decades, but the headline is poorly written and misleading.
deepsand
3.5 / 5 (24) Jul 04, 2013
For the reading impaired:

1880 to present, the average increase was .062 percent degrees Celsius per decade.
1971 to 2010, average increase of 0.17 degrees Celsius per decade
1991 to 2000, plus 0.14 degrees Celsius over previous decade
2001 to 2010, plus 0.21 degrees Celsius over previous decade

I.e., the rate of increase of the rate of increase of the 2001-2010 decade increased over that of the 1991-2000 decade.

Simple matter of the 2nd derivative having increased.

Grallen
4.2 / 5 (20) Jul 04, 2013
I want to thank Maggnus, runrig, and deepsand for their vigilance against posters who are here to spread misinformation and confusion.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (16) Jul 04, 2013
I want to thank Maggnus, runrig, and deepsand for their vigilance against posters who are here to spread misinformation and confusion.


Grallen:
It's sad that it has to be done - but ignorance must be denied. We've seen where it has lead in certain parts of the world. Mankind has this tendency to follow the line of least resistance, to find comfort in their own little worlds. The world more than ever needs us to be vigilant against such non-critical thinking.

djr
4.4 / 5 (14) Jul 04, 2013
"I.e., the rate of increase of the rate of increase of the 2001-2010 decade increased over that of the 1991-2000 decade."

Does that mean that the headline is not poorly written and misleading???
geokstr
2 / 5 (16) Jul 04, 2013
I want to thank Maggnus, runrig, and deepsand for their vigilance against posters who are here to spread misinformation and confusion.

And I would like to thank Maggnus, runrig, and even deepsand (for a change) for not using even one -tard, not even one personal insult, slur, smear, no vile language, nor accusations of mental disease, nor calling for the extermination of political opponents.

But then again, Vendicar is not here yet, so perhaps I am being premature in my congratulations.
deepsand
2.9 / 5 (14) Jul 05, 2013
"I.e., the rate of increase of the rate of increase of the 2001-2010 decade increased over that of the 1991-2000 decade."

Does that mean that the headline is not poorly written and misleading???

That is precisely what it means.
djr
4.1 / 5 (10) Jul 05, 2013
:-)
deepsand
3.3 / 5 (19) Jul 05, 2013
I want to thank Maggnus, runrig, and deepsand for their vigilance against posters who are here to spread misinformation and confusion.

And I would like to thank Maggnus, runrig, and even deepsand (for a change) for not using even one -tard, not even one personal insult, slur, smear, no vile language, nor accusations of mental disease, nor calling for the extermination of political opponents.

But then again, Vendicar is not here yet, so perhaps I am being premature in my congratulations.

There is a distinction between ignorance and stupidity. And, the denialists who repeatedly post here have been presented with more than ample information for their no longer being able to claim ignorance as defense for their repetitious erroneous claims.

Sometimes the truth hurts. Deal with it.
deepsand
3.4 / 5 (18) Jul 05, 2013
I want to thank Maggnus, runrig, and deepsand for their vigilance against posters who are here to spread misinformation and confusion.

And, thanks for your support in kind.

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." -- Edmund Burke
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (19) Jul 05, 2013
There is a distinction between ignorance and stupidity. And, the denialists who repeatedly post here have been presented with more than ample information
This is a lie. I repeatedly ask you to provide references, which you simply refuse to do.

...for their no longer being able to claim ignorance as defense for their repetitious erroneous claims.
It appears the ignorance and the repetitious erroneous claims come from you and the rest of the AGWites. None but djr have even stepped up and admitted that warming has been on hiatus for more than a decade, as seen here:

http://www.woodfo....4/trend

djr
4 / 5 (16) Jul 05, 2013
What i have acknowledged UBA is that surface temperatures have been on a plateau for about 20 years. All other indicators continue to show warming - as they did from 1940 to 1980. I have never said that warming was on hiatus. The rcent article on deep ocean temps was very informative.
SteveS
4.3 / 5 (12) Jul 05, 2013
None but djr have even stepped up and admitted that warming has been on hiatus for more than a decade, as seen here:

http://www.woodfo....4/trend


So how unusual is the last 12 years?
http://www.woodfo...o:2013.4
By taking a 12 year running mean it can be seen that the current 12 year period is not that unusual over the last 40 years. The fact is that 12 years is too short a period to filter out many of the short-term interannual fluctuations and anomalies, which is why the International Meteorological Conference in Warsaw in 1933 selected the 30 year period.
http://www.woodfo...mean:360

reposted from
http://phys.org/n...oss.html
the links have been updated
deepsand
3.4 / 5 (17) Jul 05, 2013
There is a distinction between ignorance and stupidity. And, the denialists who repeatedly post here have been presented with more than ample information
This is a lie. I repeatedly ask you to provide references, which you simply refuse to do.

Whatever you're talking about has been more than amply addressed. You just refuse to accept that you've been bested.

...for their no longer being able to claim ignorance as defense for their repetitious erroneous claims.
It appears the ignorance and the repetitious erroneous claims come from you and the rest of the AGWites. None but djr have even stepped up and admitted that warming has been on hiatus for more than a decade, as seen here:

http://www.woodfo....4/trend

Your repeated cherry-picky has grown ever so tedious. Grow up.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (19) Jul 05, 2013
What i have acknowledged UBA is that surface temperatures have been on a plateau for about 20 years.
The global warming argument was exclusively about this, until the temperatures refused to cooperate. What other climate is even relevant?

All other indicators continue to show warming - as they did from 1940 to 1980.
What indicators? Be specific and provide references.

I have never said that warming was on hiatus.
To-ma-toe, to-ma-tah

The rcent article on deep ocean temps was very informative.
.The deep ocean thing is hilarious. Solar energy can't even reach beyond a couple of hundred meters.

ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (19) Jul 05, 2013
None but djr have even stepped up and admitted that warming has been on hiatus for more than a decade, as seen here:
By taking a 12 year running mean it can be seen that the current 12 year period is not that unusual over the last 40 years.
Actually, even this overly smoothed graph flattens out significantly (and, of course doesn't even include the most recent years.

The fact is that 12 years is too short a period to filter out many of the short-term interannual fluctuations and anomalies, which is why the International Meteorological Conference in Warsaw in 1933 selected the 30 year period.
The general definition for climate is simply, prevailing conditions.

The IPCC defines climate (paraphrased) as being any relevant period of study, but meteorologists prefer 30 years.

I do find it interesting that since this last May was reported as being unusually warm, the AGWites were quick to claim it as proof of global warming (1 month trend).

ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (19) Jul 05, 2013
There is a distinction between ignorance and stupidity. And, the denialists who repeatedly post here have been presented with more than ample information
This is a lie. I repeatedly ask you to provide references, which you simply refuse to do.
Whatever you're talking about has been more than amply addressed. You just refuse to accept that you've been bested.
Again, you demonstrate my point for me.

...for their no longer being able to claim ignorance as defense for their repetitious erroneous claims.
It appears the ignorance and the repetitious erroneous claims come from you and the rest of the AGWites. None but djr have even stepped up and admitted that warming has been on hiatus for more than a decade, as seen here:

http://www.woodfo....4/trend
Your repeated cherry-picky has grown ever so tedious. Grow up.
And yet again, you demonstrate my point for me.
SteveS
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 05, 2013
Actually, even this overly smoothed graph flattens out significantly (and, of course doesn't even include the most recent years.


http://www.woodfo...o:2013.4

Look at the parameters to the right of the graph. The last point at 2007.4 is the 2001.4 to 2013.4 144 month centred mean.

The general definition for climate is simply, prevailing conditions.

The IPCC defines climate (paraphrased) as being any relevant period of study, but meteorologists prefer 30 years.


This is true. If you want to study how short-term interannual fluctuations and anomalies affect climate 12 years would be a relevant period of study.
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (18) Jul 05, 2013
As my models have predicted, the rate of increase of AGW Alarmist propaganda is inversely proportional to that of global temperatures.
djr
4.1 / 5 (14) Jul 05, 2013
UBA: "The global warming argument was exclusively about this until the temperatures refused to cooperate."

This is completely false. The climate science community has been studying the ice sheets, the glaciers, the oceans, the permafrost, for decades now. Physorg has been posting this research, and we have had many exchanges on these topics. If you need references to show you that the ice sheets are receeding, ocean temps are increasing, ocean ph is changing, glaciers are receeding, permafrost is melting - you really need to do some reading. Do you need me to take 30 minutes with google for you? For real?
deepsand
3.4 / 5 (18) Jul 06, 2013
There is a distinction between ignorance and stupidity. And, the denialists who repeatedly post here have been presented with more than ample information
This is a lie. I repeatedly ask you to provide references, which you simply refuse to do
Whatever you're talking about has been more than amply addressed. You just refuse to accept that you've been bested.
Again, you demonstrate my point for me.

Non sequitur, serving only to evades the issue of your having no legitimate complaints re. claims of failure to respond.

You don't get to ask for the same things over and over, or demand that others provide that which is irrelevant or immaterial.
deepsand
3.4 / 5 (18) Jul 06, 2013
...for their no longer being able to claim ignorance as defense for their repetitious erroneous claims.

It appears the ignorance and the repetitious erroneous claims come from you and the rest of the AGWites. None but djr have even stepped up and admitted that warming has been on hiatus for more than a decade, as seen here:

http://www.woodfo....4/trend

Your repeated cherry-picky has grown ever so tedious. Grow up.

And yet again, you demonstrate my point

Non sequitur, serving only to evade the issue of your repeatedly engaging in cherry picking, even after you been taken to task for it it ad nauseum.
deepsand
3.4 / 5 (18) Jul 06, 2013
As my models have predicted, the rate of increase of AGW Alarmist propaganda is inversely proportional to that of global temperatures.

Would those be your model doll houses?
Scottar
2.1 / 5 (19) Jul 06, 2013
The WMO is a political arm for the UN's IPCC which has certainly politicized and exaggerated global warming beyond being a natural event. Of course, they might have mentioned that the eruption of Pinatubo in 1991 meant that temperatures in that decade were depressed. GISS have estimated that global temperatures were lower by as much as 0.25C for up to 5 years as a result. This means that about half of the 0.21C warming was simply the rebound from Pinatubo, and nothing to do with greenhouse gases. One wonders why they did not mention this fact.

I have much more to post in rebuttal to this koolaide article.
Scottar
2 / 5 (21) Jul 06, 2013
Another fly in the AGW claims is the over reliance of instrumental record whose nature and coverage has changed dramatically from decade to decade, and then there's the unscrupulous cooking of the data:

In a January 29 report, it was found that starting in 1990, the NOAA began systematically eliminating climate measuring stations in cooler locations around the world. Yes, that's right. They began eliminating stations that tended to record cooler temperatures and drove up the average measured temperature. The eliminated stations had been in higher latitudes and altitudes, inland areas away from the sea, as well as more rural locations. The drop in the number of weather stations was dramatic, declining from more than 6,000 stations to fewer than 1,500. SurfaceStations.org Also reported is the placement of temperature stations in rapidly growing area where rural changed to urban, skewing the data with a false increase.
Maggnus
4 / 5 (13) Jul 06, 2013
]This is a lie. I repeatedly ask you to provide references, which you simply refuse to do.


Wow Dumdum, most of us who point out your duplicity and misrepresentations have done so because of your studious ignoring of any evidence that counters what you have already decided to believe. You are a liar and a fraud.

None but djr have even stepped up and admitted that warming has been on hiatus for more than a decade, as seen here:


That is because it hasn't been, your cherry-picked and misrepresented chart not with standing. You see Dumdum, global warming affect the WHOLE globe.

Laughably inept attempt to misrepresent djr. You are a one of a kind Dumdum, I'll say that for you.
Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (14) Jul 06, 2013
Wow Scottar that's some take on the conspiracy you got going there. The WHO is a political arm are they? That's a newer one. Of course, you might have mentioned the 7 decades prior to Pinatubo's eruption that showed global warming. You might also have mentioned how scientists documented the lower global temperatures after that eruption. You might also mention how global temperatures are still higher despite the short-term affect of that eruption.

You state as fact that NOAA is eliminating weather stations, and represent those weather stations as being only in cooler locations across the globe. I call bull crap. Prove it skippy. Where's your proof of such a ridiculous statement?
Scottar
1.6 / 5 (19) Jul 06, 2013
This explains how measured temperatures rose dramatically for Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Norway, Sweden, and the United States. That is not in the least bit surprising, since NOAA, like NASA, the Met Office, WMO, IPCC, HADCRUT, and other highly politicized institutions promoting global-warming alarmism, has been caught more than once tilting the data and tweaking the computer models. When confronted with requests for access to their raw data to address the errors, deception, and egregious breeches of scientific procedure in their research, the climate alarmists have resorted to stonewalling, destroying the data, and/or the equivalent of "it got lost" excuses. However, the MSM lapdogs at NBC, ABC, CNN, AP, Reuters, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, etc. can be counted on to bark and yap in unison every time a new climate alarmist press release is issued.

If you want accuracy in temperature reporting refer to RSS or satellite data.

So why the hullabaloo in hottest decade hype?
Scottar
1.6 / 5 (20) Jul 06, 2013

You state as fact that NOAA is eliminating weather stations, and represent those weather stations as being only in cooler locations across the globe. I call bull crap. Prove it skippy. Where's your proof of such a ridiculous statement?


I did, surfacestation.org. Add to that:

dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286

Global Warming Stopped 16 Years Ago, Reveals Met Office Report Quietly Released

washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/11/2012-

Jan 11, 2013
2012 probably not the hottest on record, after all

Until the use of thermocouple temperature indicators became common in the U.S. climate network, temperatures were determined with mercury thermometers that are, at best, only accurate within 0.9 degree Fahrenheit. Even today, many U.S. stations only record temperatures to the closest whole degree. Thus, breaking the 1936 high temperature record by 0.2 degrees F, as NCDC claimed occurred last July, is not meaningful.

Go read the rest sheeple.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (17) Jul 06, 2013
Scottar:
Err, right.

To someone without adequate scientific knowledge of weather/climate your bizare global conspiracy myth might seem plausible that to " remove cooler higher latitude station etc". would result in a globally cooler temperature trend. However you need to know how weather/climate works to realize that assertion is bollocks.

But first 2 points:
1) There are several independently collated global temperature records not just GISS.
2) 70% of the globe is ocean. Have they removed the higher, cooler staions at sea?

Crucially though you are ignorant (obviously) of the fact that higher (as in latitude) parts of the world are exhibiting GREATER warming. So the removal of all but one station north of 65 deg in N Canada has shot them in the foot.

We are concerned with the RATE OF CHANGE of temperature not "temperature".

Cont.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (16) Jul 06, 2013
The Koch's sponsored BEST paper also found: "The Urban Heat Island effect is real. Berkeley's analysis focused on the question of whether this effect BIASES the global land average. The results indicate that the urban heat island effect on our global estimate of land temperatures is indistinguishable from ZERO." ( my capitals)

Now See: http://www.skepti...hp?n=184

"The most important issue is whether this drop-off in the number of reporting weather stations has had any impact on the temperature record. D'Aleo's report performs no such analysis. However, there have been a number of independent analyses examining this very question. The first analysis was conducted by Tamino, from Open Mind, who plotted the temperature
data from the weather stations that were dropped from the GHCN record (labelled 'pre-cutoff'). He then compared this to the temperature data from the weather stations that were kept (labelled 'post-cutoff)'".

Cont.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (16) Jul 06, 2013

"What's interesting about this graph is not only that there is little difference between the two plots but that the dropped weather stations actually show a greater warming trend than the kept weather stations. This is not surprising considering many of the dropped weather stations are from higher latitude sites. While these regions have a cooler absolute temperature, they show a greater warming trend. This is the result of polar amplification - warming at the tropics is less than warming at the poles due to various effects such as positive feedback from ice albedo changes.".

My request to you and others of biased and bigoted opinion with global conspiracy delusions is to use critical thinking. Do the world's experts in ( any ) subject not necessarily know more about that subject that the layman???
Is it not, by the balance of probabilities much more likely that you are wrong? and any conceived conspiracy is either a figment of your fevered mind, or if not, then merely a cock-up.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (21) Jul 06, 2013
Actually, even this overly smoothed graph flattens out significantly (and, of course doesn't even include the most recent years.

http://www.woodfo...o:2013.4

Look at the parameters to the right of the graph. The last point at 2007.4 is the 2001.4 to 2013.4 144 month centred mean.
But it's only a data point. It doesn't show the trend of the last 12 years. In other words, you've only used it to hide the relevant data.

The general definition for climate is simply, prevailing conditions.

The IPCC defines climate (paraphrased) as being any relevant period of study, but meteorologists prefer 30 years.
This is true. If you want to study how short-term interannual fluctuations and anomalies affect climate 12 years would be a relevant period of study.
Not if you were interested in what's happening now.

Why is it AGWites work so hard to hide the current data? Shouldn't they rejoice?

ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (21) Jul 06, 2013
UBA: "The global warming argument was exclusively about this until the temperatures refused to cooperate."

This is completely false. The climate science community has been studying the ice sheets, the glaciers, the oceans, the permafrost, for decades now. Physorg has been posting this research, and we have had many exchanges on these topics. If you need references to show you that the ice sheets are receeding, ocean temps are increasing, ocean ph is changing, glaciers are receeding, permafrost is melting
Yeah, like since the last ice age.

- you really need to do some reading. Do you need me to take 30 minutes with google for you? For real?
And why do AGWites refuse to talk about the increasing sea ice in Antarctica? Various growing glaciers The lack of any corresponding response to this claimed "accelerating ice melt" in regards to sea levels? Where is the water going? Is it evaporating away to space?

You only see what you want to see.

ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (20) Jul 06, 2013
There is a distinction between ignorance and stupidity. And, the denialists who repeatedly post here have been presented with more than ample information
This is a lie. I repeatedly ask you to provide references, which you simply refuse to do
Whatever you're talking about has been more than amply addressed. You just refuse to accept that you've been bested.
Again, you demonstrate my point for me.
Non sequitur, serving only to evades the issue of your having no legitimate complaints re. claims of failure to respond.

You don't get to ask for the same things over and over, or demand that others provide that which is irrelevant or immaterial.
As I said, you simply refuse to provide references. So yet again, you demonstrate my point for me. And you're openly admitting it.

ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (20) Jul 06, 2013
...for their no longer being able to claim ignorance as defense for their repetitious erroneous claims.
It appears the ignorance and the repetitious erroneous claims come from you and the rest of the AGWites. None but djr have even stepped up and admitted that warming has been on hiatus for more than a decade, as seen here:

http://www.woodfo....4/trend
Your repeated cherry-picky has grown ever so tedious. Grow up.
And yet again, you demonstrate my point
Non sequitur, serving only to evade the issue of your repeatedly engaging in cherry picking, even after you been taken to task for it it ad nauseum.
So where's your counter reference which invalidates this data?

Now I'm not talking about covering up this data, as AGWites are prone to do. Let's talk about the last 12 years. Why aren't you rejoicing?

JohnGee
3.7 / 5 (19) Jul 06, 2013
Here's more of those dirty tobacco tricks the other article spoke about. Antarctica is warming tuba. http://www.skepti...asic.htm (I set it to basic for you.)

"Antarctica is losing land ice at an accelerating rate.

However, it is clear that the extent of sea ice around the coast of the continent is growing. Why? The first explanation which comes to mind is that the Southern Ocean must be cooling. But on the contrary, the Southern Ocean has warmed by around 0.5°C in the three decades since satellites began measuring sea ice trends.

The true reasons for the increasing ice are a complex set of factors. One factor is an increase in precipitation over the Southern Ocean, which means more snowfall. However, this trend is expected to reverse in coming decades as the Antarctic continues to warm."
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (19) Jul 06, 2013
This is a lie. I repeatedly ask you to provide references, which you simply refuse to do.
Wow Dumdum, most of us who point out your duplicity and misrepresentations have done so because of your studious ignoring of any evidence that counters what you have already decided to believe. You are a liar and a fraud.
Simply serves to validate my point. Where's your data?

None but djr have even stepped up and admitted that warming has been on hiatus for more than a decade, as seen here:
That is because it hasn't been, your cherry-picked and misrepresented chart not with standing. You see Dumdum, global warming affect the WHOLE globe.
Proves your stupidity. My reference is global data.

Laughably inept attempt to misrepresent djr. You are a one of a kind Dumdum, I'll say that for you.
Scorn instead of a valid argument? What's the matter? No supporting data?
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (20) Jul 06, 2013
Here's more of those dirty tobacco tricks the other article spoke about. Antarctica is warming tuba. http://www.skepti...asic.htm (I set it to basic for you.)

"Antarctica is losing land ice at an accelerating rate.

However, it is clear that the extent of sea ice around the coast of the continent is growing. Why? The first explanation which comes to mind is that the Southern Ocean must be cooling. But on the contrary, the Southern Ocean has warmed by around 0.5°C in the three decades since satellites began measuring sea ice trends.

The true reasons for the increasing ice are a complex set of factors. One factor is an increase in precipitation over the Southern Ocean, which means more snowfall. However, this trend is expected to reverse in coming decades as the Antarctic continues to warm."
So your claim is more sea ice freezes when it's warmer? Please explain the physics behind this!

SteveS
4.1 / 5 (14) Jul 06, 2013
ubavontuba

But it's only a data point. It doesn't show the trend of the last 12 years. In other words, you've only used it to hide the relevant data.


The graph shows the 144 month centred mean overlaid by the relevant data from 1950. Nothing was hidden.

Not if you were interested in what's happening now.


12 years data is only relevant if you are interested in short-term interannual fluctuations and anomalies. Looking back over the last 60 years, how unusual is the last 12 years?

In other words, you've only used it to hide the relevant data.
Why is it AGWites work so hard to hide the current data?


I have remained civil throughout our discussion; your allegations of dishonesty are unwarrented.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (13) Jul 06, 2013
I add to that
dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286
Global Warming Stopped 16 Years Ago, Reveals Met Office Report Quietly Released

Go read the rest sheeple.


Yes please do........
http://metofficen...er-2012/
VendicarE
4.1 / 5 (13) Jul 06, 2013
"So your claim is more sea ice freezes when it's warmer?' - UbVonTard

Larger area, smaller volume. You have been corrected on your false interpretation on numerous occasions in the past.

Why do you persist in lying when you know you will just be caught again?

VendicarE
4.1 / 5 (13) Jul 06, 2013
"Even today, many U.S. stations only record temperatures to the closest whole degree. Thus, breaking the 1936 high temperature record by 0.2 degrees F, as NCDC claimed occurred last July, is not meaningful." - ScotTard

The poor little Tardie hasn't been in school long enough to have been taught that the Standard Error for summation goes as follows.

SE = s/sqrt(n) where s is the reading error, and n is the number of reads.

Hence for 100 reads SE = 0.1 * s making a change of 0.2'C statistically distinguishable.

VendicarE
4.1 / 5 (14) Jul 06, 2013
"NOAA, like NASA, the Met Office, WMO, IPCC, HADCRUT, and other highly politicized institutions promoting global-warming alarmism, has been caught more than once tilting the data and tweaking the computer models." - ScotTard

That is your accusation, An accusation made often by Denialist Retards who don't understand science. Accusations that have been investigated on numerous occasions by real scientists, and found to be false accusations made by Enemies of science.

You know. Enemies of Science like you TardieBoy.

VendicarE
4.1 / 5 (14) Jul 06, 2013
"You state as fact that NOAA is eliminating weather stations, and represent those weather stations as being only in cooler locations across the globe. I call bull crap. Prove it skippy. Where's your proof of such a ridiculous statement?" - Magnus

Anthony Watts of "What A Tard I am" tried to produce such a "proof". He failed in his Heritage Foundation anti-science mission.

Poor Denialist Tards. They can't even produce evidence to support their own kook Tard assertions.
VendicarE
4.1 / 5 (14) Jul 06, 2013
"Another fly in the AGW claims is the over reliance of instrumental record whose nature and coverage has changed dramatically from decade to decade" - ScotTard

Yes, it is a real problem. Fortunately a host of methods have been employed to reduce it's impact, and all those different methods produce a nearly identical warming extent.

The Koch brothers tried to fund one (BEST) that they thought would produce results more in line with their political views.

They ended up funding research that confirmed the reality of the climate change that they had been denying for decades.

Bahahahahahahah...........
VendicarE
4.1 / 5 (14) Jul 06, 2013
"The general definition for climate is simply, prevailing conditions." - UbVonTard

I have seen dozens of definitions for "climate" and never have any matched the personal one you have just provided.

Why do you feel that you need to dishonestly alter the meaning of words in order to establish your position?

is dishonesty the only way you know how to conduct yourself?
djr
4.3 / 5 (16) Jul 06, 2013
UBA: "And why do AGWites refuse to talk about the increasing sea ice in Antarctica? Various growing glaciers The lack of any corresponding response to this claimed "accelerating ice melt" in regards to sea levels? Where is the water going? Is it evaporating away to space?

The scientists studying the climate do talk about these things all the time. Take one example - glaciers. You talk about 'various growing glaciers" Do you know what percentage of glaciers around the world are advancing, and what percentage are retreating? Do you know that the WGMS is monitoring the glaciers, and understands fully that some high altitude glaciers are growing? Do you understand the term mass balance?

UBA - you glibly accuse others of only seeing what they want - and yet this is clearly a reflection of yourself. The scientists are studying the problem - and paying attention to all issues. The problem is in your head.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (19) Jul 07, 2013
Nothing was hidden.
It's dishonest for you to say this. You've deliberately hidden the 12 year trend. Why 12 years? Is this some standard? No. You chose it to hide the current trend, and only the current trend.

Here's the same graph using the less (but still) manipulated HadCRUT3 data:

http://www.woodfo...o:2013.4

All of a sudden it's significantly flattened out. So what now? Perhaps you're going to say HadCRUT3 data is invalid? ...or perhaps you'll switch to 16 year means?

12 years data is only relevant if you are interested in short-term interannual fluctuations and anomalies.
LOL. Apparently what makes it irrelevant is it doesn't agree with AGWite expectations. Why aren't you happy it isn't warming?

I have remained civil throughout our discussion;
As have I.

your allegations of dishonesty are unwarrented.
Are they?

deepsand
3.3 / 5 (19) Jul 07, 2013
Actually, even this overly smoothed graph flattens out significantly (and, of course doesn't even include the most recent years.

http://www.woodfo...o:2013.4

Look at the parameters to the right of the graph. The last point at 2007.4 is the 2001.4 to 2013.4 144 month centred mean.
But it's only a data point. It doesn't show the trend of the last 12 years. In other words, you've only used it to hide the relevant data.

You mean like you do every time that you present cherry-picked short time spans?

Neinsense99
3.4 / 5 (15) Jul 07, 2013
"So your claim is more sea ice freezes when it's warmer?' - UbVonTard

Larger area, smaller volume. You have been corrected on your false interpretation on numerous occasions in the past.

Why do you persist in lying when you know you will just be caught again?


From Ubavontarda's profile: "Bad science is worse than no science at all." Oh the irony... Hee hee... hahaha... (knee slap)
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (19) Jul 07, 2013
"The general definition for climate is simply, prevailing conditions." - Uba

I have seen dozens of definitions for "climate" and never have any matched the personal one you have just provided.
maybe you could simply Google it.

cli·mate /ˈklīmit/
Noun
1.The weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period.
2.A region with particular prevailing weather conditions.

http://www.google...finition

Why do you feel that you need to dishonestly alter the meaning of words in order to establish your position?
So if you haven't seen it, it can't exist?

is dishonesty the only way you know how to conduct yourself?
this appears to be your shtick.

deepsand
3.6 / 5 (17) Jul 07, 2013
The general definition for climate is simply, prevailing conditions.

The IPCC defines climate (paraphrased) as being any relevant period of study, but meteorologists prefer 30 years.
This is true. If you want to study how short-term interannual fluctuations and anomalies affect climate 12 years would be a relevant period of study.
Not if you were interested in what's happening now.

Balderdash. Knowing only the "now" tells one nothing about the future.

Why is it AGWites work so hard to hide the current data? Shouldn't they
deepsand
3.7 / 5 (18) Jul 07, 2013
There is a distinction between ignorance and stupidity. And, the denialists who repeatedly post here have been presented with more than ample information
This is a lie. I repeatedly ask you to provide references, which you simply refuse to do
Whatever you're talking about has been more than amply addressed. You just refuse to accept that you've been bested.
Again, you demonstrate my point for me.
Non sequitur, serving only to evades the issue of your having no legitimate complaints re. claims of failure to respond.

You don't get to ask for the same things over and over, or demand that others provide that which is irrelevant or immaterial.
As I said, you simply refuse to provide references. So yet again, you demonstrate my point for me. And you're openly admitting it.

Asked and answered. Deal with it.
deepsand
3.7 / 5 (18) Jul 07, 2013
...for their no longer being able to claim ignorance as defense for their repetitious erroneous claims.
It appears the ignorance and the repetitious erroneous claims come from you and the rest of the AGWites. None but djr have even stepped up and admitted that warming has been on hiatus for more than a decade, as seen here:

http://www.woodfo....4/trend
Your repeated cherry-picky has grown ever so tedious. Grow up.
And yet again, you demonstrate my point
Non sequitur, serving only to evade the issue of your repeatedly engaging in cherry picking, even after you been taken to task for it it ad nauseum.
So where's your counter reference which invalidates this data?

Now I'm not talking about covering up this data, as AGWites are prone to do. Let's talk about the last 12 years. Why aren't you rejoicing?

Asked and answered. Move on.
deepsand
3.7 / 5 (18) Jul 07, 2013
Why is it AGWites work so hard to hide the current data?

Why do you work so hard to hide the long term trend?
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (20) Jul 07, 2013
"So your claim is more sea ice freezes when it's warmer?' - UbVonTard Larger area, smaller volume. You have been corrected on your false interpretation on numerous occasions in the past.
References?

So how does the area increase, the ice last longer, and yet the volume not increase? Is it magic?

Why do you persist in lying when you know you will just be caught again?
Again, your shtick.
deepsand
3.6 / 5 (18) Jul 07, 2013
"So your claim is more sea ice freezes when it's warmer?' - UbVonTard Larger area, smaller volume. You have been corrected on your false interpretation on numerous occasions in the past.
References?

So how does the area increase, the ice last longer, and yet the volume not increase? Is it magic?

Asked and answered.

Why do you persist in lying when you know you will just be caught again?
Again, your shtick.

No matter how long or loudly you protest, your lies are a matter of public record.

Deal with it.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (42) Jul 07, 2013
And yet global carbon emissions continue to rise, even though the USA has reduced their output more than any other country on the planet since 2006. Emerging economies like China are increasing their co2 dumping and accelerating their coal plant construction, and will NOT voluntarily give up their countries economic growth on account of AGW. What will happen when that populous is able to afford cars?

The world relies on the west having a strong economy, particularly the USA's economy. A strong economy is absolutely a prerequisite to switching over to alternatives, so left wing policies that dampen or disrupt economies and work counter to capitalism, will not work and will in fact prolong carbon based energy use.

ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (22) Jul 07, 2013
Balderdash. Knowing only the "now" tells one nothing about the future.
Idiot. You can't get to the future from any other place. And the "now" has a history that's over a dozen years long.

Why is it AGWites work so hard to hide the current data? Shouldn't they rejoice?
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (20) Jul 07, 2013
There is a distinction between ignorance and stupidity. And, the denialists who repeatedly post here have been presented with more than ample information
This is a lie. I repeatedly ask you to provide references, which you simply refuse to do
Whatever you're talking about has been more than amply addressed. You just refuse to accept that you've been bested.
Again, you demonstrate my point for me.
Non sequitur, serving only to evades the issue of your having no legitimate complaints re. claims of failure to respond.

You don't get to ask for the same things over and over, or demand that others provide that which is irrelevant or immaterial.
As I said, you simply refuse to provide references. So yet again, you demonstrate my point for me. And you're openly admitting it.

Asked and answered. Deal with it.
It appears you've lost all context. I didn't even ask a question. LOL

Spambot much?
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (22) Jul 07, 2013
Why is it AGWites work so hard to hide the current data?

Why do you work so hard to hide the long term trend?
When have I supposedly done that? Are lies, like this, all you have?

I've readily admitted there's been warming in the past. When are you going to step up and admit there's been no additional warming for at least a dozen years?

Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (44) Jul 07, 2013
For every inconvenient truth, the AGW propagandists have another "study" waiting to obscure it. There's a world of difference between truth and facts. Facts can obscure the truth.

"facts schmacks,... you could use facts to prove anything that is even remotely true" - Homer J. Simpson
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (21) Jul 07, 2013
So your claim is more sea ice freezes when it's warmer?
Larger area, smaller volume. You have been corrected on your false interpretation on numerous occasions in the past.
References?

So how does the area increase, the ice last longer, and yet the volume not increase? Is it magic?
Asked and answered.
Another lie from spambot deepsand.

And as deepsand is now readily answering for Vendispambot, shall we presume Vendispambot and deepsand are sockpuppets?

Why do you persist in lying when you know you will just be caught again?
Again, your shtick.
No matter how long or loudly you protest, your lies are a matter of public record.

Deal with it.
Projection much?

Obviously, as shown above, the lies are yours.

freethinking
1.6 / 5 (20) Jul 07, 2013
Why do Progressives on this board love being Sock Puppet Masters? Because like Progressives everywhere, they practice lying, cheating, stealing, and the more they can do it, the better they feel.
JohnGee
3.4 / 5 (17) Jul 07, 2013
Who is your master FreepTwink? You're obviously a sockpuppet because you love taking it up to the elbow.
deepsand
3.2 / 5 (18) Jul 07, 2013
Balderdash. Knowing only the "now" tells one nothing about the future.
Idiot. You can't get to the future from any other place. And the "now" has a history that's over a dozen years long.

Twelve years of cherry-picked data is neither "now" nor indicative of the future.

Why is it AGWites work so hard to hide the current data?

Why do you work so hard to hide the long term trend?
deepsand
3.3 / 5 (19) Jul 07, 2013
There is a distinction between ignorance and stupidity. And, the denialists who repeatedly post here have been presented with more than ample information
This is a lie. I repeatedly ask you to provide references, which you simply refuse to do
Whatever you're talking about has been more than amply addressed. You just refuse to accept that you've been bested.
Again, you demonstrate my point for me.
Non sequitur, serving only to evades the issue of your having no legitimate complaints re. claims of failure to respond.

You don't get to ask for the same things over and over, or demand that others provide that which is irrelevant or immaterial.
As I said, you simply refuse to provide references. So yet again, you demonstrate my point for me. And you're openly admitting it.

Asked and answered. Deal with it.
It appears you've lost all context. I didn't even ask a question.

Seems that you've lost track of your own inane ramblings.
deepsand
3.2 / 5 (18) Jul 07, 2013
Why is it AGWites work so hard to hide the current data?

Why do you work so hard to hide the long term trend?
When have I supposedly done that? Are lies, like this, all you have?[/q[
Every time that you've presented cherry-picked data to deny the long term trend.

I've readily admitted there's been warming in the past. When are you going to step up and admit there's been no additional warming for at least a dozen years?

When are you going to present evidence to prove that Earth's total thermal energy has ceased to increase?
djr
4.3 / 5 (16) Jul 07, 2013
"When are you going to step up and admit there's been no additional warming for at least a dozen years?"

Does warming oceans count? Or does UBA get to define not only the meaning of the word warming - but also what we can and cannot apply it to? Must be cool being God.

http://www.nodc.n...CONTENT/

Maybe water temperature - is not real temperature - because it is - you know - wet - so wet temperature does not count.
freethinking
1.4 / 5 (20) Jul 07, 2013
JohnGee, many/most of the Progressives on this board are either sock puppets, or sock puppet masters. Getting called names for calling out Hypocrites who use sock puppets is very similar to a liar insulting someone who is asking for people to speak the truth.

So JohnGee, do you approve of your Hezbollah Progressive friends and supporters using Sock Puppets?
deepsand
3.5 / 5 (21) Jul 07, 2013
So your claim is more sea ice freezes when it's warmer?
Larger area, smaller volume. You have been corrected on your false interpretation on numerous occasions in the past.
References?

So how does the area increase, the ice last longer, and yet the volume not increase? Is it magic?
Asked and answered.
Another lie from spambot deepsand.
Another lie from UTuba.

And as deepsand is now readily answering for Vendispambot, shall we presume Vendispambot and deepsand are sockpuppets?
ASSUMES facts not in evidence.

Why do you persist in lying when you know you will just be caught again?
Again, your shtick.
No matter how long or loudly you protest, your lies are a matter of public record.

Deal with it.
Projection much?

Sucks when you're publicly caught in lies, doesn't it? Given your self-proclaimed superior intellect, one wold expect that you would by now figured out the way to avoid embarrassment is to STO
deepsand
3.4 / 5 (20) Jul 07, 2013
Why do Progressives on this board love being Sock Puppet Masters? Because like Progressives everywhere, they practice lying, cheating, stealing, and the more they can do it, the better they feel.

You lack the humour to be entertaining, the knowledge to be informative, and have all the charm and attraction of a deceased rat which suffered from leprosy and incontinence.
JohnGee
3.4 / 5 (20) Jul 07, 2013
JohnGee, many/most of the Progressives on this board are either sock puppets, or sock puppet masters. Getting called names for calling out Hypocrites who use sock puppets is very similar to a liar insulting someone who is asking for people to speak the truth.

So JohnGee, do you approve of your Hezbollah Progressive friends and supporters using Sock Puppets?

FreepTwink, do you really have time to come up with conspiracy theories in order to explain your internet disputes? You really can't fathom people disagreeing with you, can you?

I can't answer the question because there are no Hezbollah Progressives. It's something your diseased little mind came up with to make your moronic worldview seem less silly. Even your subconscious is smarter than you are.

So am I to assume the man next to you whose lips quiver when you speak is missing his arm below the elbow? Or am I right to assume he has half his arm up your ass? I won't speculate on whether you enjoy it or not. (You Do.)
deepsand
3.6 / 5 (20) Jul 07, 2013
JohnGee, many/most of the Progressives on this board are either sock puppets, or sock puppet masters. Getting called names for calling out Hypocrites who use sock puppets is very similar to a liar insulting someone who is asking for people to speak the truth.

So JohnGee, do you approve of your Hezbollah Progressive friends and supporters using Sock Puppets?

You are like an insane woodpecker looking for a grub in a block of concrete.
SteveS
4.7 / 5 (12) Jul 07, 2013
ubavontuba

The graph shows the 144 month centred mean overlaid by the relevant data from 1950.

It's dishonest for you to say this. You've deliberately hidden the 12 year trend.


I included all data back to 1950, not just to 2001 as you did. I hid nothing.

Why 12 years? Is this some standard? No. You chose it to hide the current trend


The choice of 12 years was yours

Jul 06, 2013
Let's talk about the last 12 years.


Which is why I pointed out that 12 years is too short a period to filter out many of the short-term interannual fluctuations and anomalies.

In other words, you've only used it to hide the relevant data.
Why is it AGWites work so hard to hide the current data?
It's dishonest for you to say this.


your allegations of dishonesty are unwarranted.

Are they?


I'll leave the last word to you
LOL. Ad hominems instead of an apology. Is that the best of who you are?

http://phys.org/n...ors.html
ubavontuba
1.2 / 5 (20) Jul 07, 2013
I included all data back to 1950, not just to 2001 as you did. I hid nothing.
Right, because you wanted to hide the trend of the last 12 years.

The choice of 12 years was yours.

Jul 06, 2013
Let's talk about the last 12 years.
Right, I chose twelve years and only the last 12 years. Why did you extend it, if not to hide the most recent 12 year trend?

Which is why I pointed out that 12 years is too short a period to filter out many of the short-term interannual fluctuations and anomalies.
These are weasel words (a meaningless assertion).

your allegations of dishonesty are unwarranted.
Apparently they're all too warranted.

SteveS = liar.

VendicarE
4.2 / 5 (15) Jul 07, 2013
"Why did you extend it, if not to hide the most recent 12 year trend?" - UbVonTard

Oh, probably it is extended because 12 years don't establish any valid climate trend.

This has been shown to you on multiple occasions.

You are apparently incapable of learning.

Remember this plot... TardieBoy?

https://docs.goog...=sharing

Think real hard.... Moron.
VendicarE
4.2 / 5 (15) Jul 07, 2013
"Idiot spambot. That's only true if you're measuring isolated parts of the system. The whole system's temperature increases." - UbVonTard

Wrong again, my little Conservative Moron. The temperature of the system of boiling water remains static while the water turns to steam.

It is a property of phase transitions that 11 year olds know, and you are clueless about.

What a shame you never graduated from grade 6.

Look at it this way, dung for brains, if the steam were hotter than the water it would cool by heating the water, thereby negating the implied reason for it's existence.

Poor Dung for Brains UbVonTard. He knows less about how the world works than an 11 year old.
ubavontuba
1.2 / 5 (20) Jul 07, 2013
"Idiot spambot. That's only true if you're measuring isolated parts of the system. The whole system's temperature increases." - UbVonTard

Wrong again, my little Conservative Moron. The temperature of the system of boiling water remains static while the water turns to steam.

It is a property of phase transitions that 11 year olds know, and you are clueless about.

What a shame you never graduated from grade 6.

Look at it this way, dung for brains, if the steam were hotter than the water it would cool by heating the water, thereby negating the implied reason for it's existence.

Poor Dung for Brains UbVonTard. He knows less about how the world works than an 11 year old.
You're such an idiot. The world isn't boiling.

VendicarE
4.1 / 5 (14) Jul 07, 2013
"Maybe you think the steam in a steam engine never gets above 100'C? LOL." - UbVonTard

The temperature of steam in a steam engine never exceeds the temperature of the boiling water that generates it. Doing so is a violation of the laws of thermodynamics.

The steam and the water are necessarily at thermal equilibrium. If the steam was hotter it would warm the water to the point where the temperatures would then be equal.

11 year olds know the science. What is your excuse for being ignorant of it?

ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (19) Jul 07, 2013
"Maybe you think the steam in a steam engine never gets above 100'C? LOL." - Uba

The temperature of steam in a steam engine never exceeds the temperature of the boiling water that generates it. Doing so is a violation of the laws of thermodynamics.
The water can be heated to any arbitrary temperature which pressure the boiler can withstand. Hypothetically, it can be both superheated and compressed enough to retain the characteristics of a liquid, or semi-liquid. The work of the engine is accomplished by providing a pathway for relieving the pressure.

The steam and the water are necessarily at thermal equilibrium. If the steam was hotter it would warm the water to the point where the temperatures would then be equal.
Generally speaking, the thermal energy for a gaseous state, by mass, far exceeds that of a liquid or solid of the same material.

VendicarE
4.1 / 5 (14) Jul 07, 2013
"The water can be heated to any arbitrary temperature which pressure the boiler can withstand." - UbVontard

Which of course has no relevance to your claim that steam is hotter than the water from which it comes.

Tarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrd.
VendicarE
4.1 / 5 (14) Jul 07, 2013
"Generally speaking, the thermal energy for a gaseous state, by mass, far exceeds that of a liquid or solid of the same material." - UbVonTard

Thermal energy is not heat.

Tarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrd

You just keep on making those grade school science mistakes.

No wonder you are so pathetically ignorant about global warming.

You haven't got a clue as to what warming is.

Moron
Humpty
2 / 5 (16) Jul 08, 2013
Actually YOU are all wrong.

It's satan being let loosed from hell to kill and burn all the christians.

As for the rest of humanity that does not believe in such utter cult based brain washing - it's weather and shit.
VendicarE
4 / 5 (12) Jul 08, 2013
The loving Christian God of freedom, who threatens us with eternal torture by mighty hell-fire unless we follow his loving dictates, will protect us.
Scottar
1.7 / 5 (17) Jul 09, 2013


Now See: http://www.skepti...hp?n=184

"The most important issue is whether this drop-off in the number of reporting weather stations has had any impact on the temperature record. D'Aleo's report performs no such analysis.

Cont.

Skeptical science is run by a pro-AGW cartoonist- Cook. He has all the credibility of McKibben of 350.org. Surfacestations.org is a project by Anthony Watts promoted by the icecap.us
Scottar
1.5 / 5 (16) Jul 09, 2013
Vindaretard:

SE = s/sqrt(n) where s is the reading error, and n is the number of reads.

Hence for 100 reads SE = 0.1 * s making a change of 0.2'C statistically distinguishable.



Flawed data is flawed data, NASA, GISS, NOAA and others have been cooking the data to show false warming. "Published works by Dr. Roger Pielke of the University of Colorado, Dev Nyogi of Purdue University, and Georg Taylor of Oregon State University have demonstrated that a significant number of USHCN and other weather stations used in the climate record have some significant, and in some cases severe measurement biases near the thermometers in these climate stations of record."
Scottar
1.5 / 5 (16) Jul 09, 2013

That is your accusation, An accusation made often by Denialist Retards who don't understand science. Accusations that have been investigated on numerous occasions by real scientists, and found to be false accusations made by Enemies of science.

You know. Enemies of Science like you TardieBoy.


Warmistas like you just can't handle the real truth by real, unbiased scientists- Vediretard

Jun 20, 2013
NOAA follies continue: May global numbers out of line with RSS/UAH and even GISS- icecap.us

http://blog.nj.co...ein.html

Scottar
1.5 / 5 (16) Jul 09, 2013


The Koch brothers tried to fund one (BEST) that they thought would produce results more in line with their political views.

.


Yes but Judith Curry, a climatologist, former AGWer and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, is quite critical of Muller's findings: "Judged by standards set by the IPCC and the best of recent observation-based attribution analyses, in my opinion the Rhode, Muller et al. attribution analysis falls way short. … Looking at regional variations provides substantial insights into the attribution."

So you have another, prominent former pro-warmist questioning the methodology of a turncoat alleged skeptic- Muller. The Koch Brothers had nothing to do about that.
Scottar
1.3 / 5 (15) Jul 09, 2013

The steam and the water are necessarily at thermal equilibrium. If the steam was hotter it would warm the water to the point where the temperatures would then be equal. -Generally speaking, the thermal energy for a gaseous state, by mass, far exceeds that of a liquid or solid of the same material.



And that is proven on the Wiki page on boilers, it has good references, physics correct!
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 09, 2013
Now See: http://www.skepti...hp?n=184

"The most important issue is whether this drop-off in the number of reporting weather stations has had any impact on the temperature record. D'Aleo's report performs no such analysis.

Skeptical science is run by a pro-AGW cartoonist- Cook. He has all the credibility of McKibben of 350.org. Surfacestations.org is a project by Anthony Watts promoted by the icecap.us


Don't make me laugh - Mr Watts is not an anti-AGW cartoonist?
http://en.wikiped...blogger)
http://www.source...ny_Watts

OK, don't like skepticalscience - you could always go the the papers referenced by them.
Also there's this paper done by the National Climatic Data Center. Does that qualify as legitimate? ....

ftp://ftp.ncdc.no...2010.pdf
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 09, 2013
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 09, 2013

Yes but Judith Curry, a climatologist, former AGWer and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, is quite critical of Muller's findings: "Judged by standards set by the IPCC and the best of recent observation-based attribution analyses, in my opinion the Rhode, Muller et al. attribution analysis falls way short. … Looking at regional variations provides substantial insights into the attribution."
.............


So what. Is Judith Curry the arbiter of all things GW/AGW?

The BEST findings find that the UHI effect (their words) "...on our global estimate of land temperatures is indistinguishable from ZERO." and also mirror all the other "hockey sticks" revealed by all the other climate researchers around the world.

If you can't get the result you wanted by paying a skeptic to do the research for you - well - you know - then maybe you have not seen that the Emperor is naked after all. He is in fact fully clothed.
deepsand
3.5 / 5 (14) Jul 09, 2013
[qWarmistas like you just can't handle the real truth by real, unbiased scientists
Denialists can't distinguish fact from wishful thinking.
Scottar
1.3 / 5 (12) Jul 11, 2013
Response to runrig and deepsand.

Surfacestations.org has a picture and data of 2 temperature station sites in California on it's home page, quite reveling. Watt now has a et al paper, Fall Et Al 2011, that has been accepted by the JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH. Muller paper got turned down.

theregister.co.uk/2012/07/31/best_barnum/

Ex climate sceptic' Muller's latest BEST stuff is the worst so far

Sourcewatch is biased- go here: populartechnology.net/2011/10/truth-about-sourcewatch.html

These site prove that the UN is full of hooey:
theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/man-made-global-warming-wrong-ten.html

wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/08/are-climate-models-realistic-now-includes-at-least-february-data/

Are Climate Models Realistic?- Using skeptical science's own data. And Woods also.

Icecap.us is supported by far more then Joseph D'Aleo, click on "experts" link

I think phys.org is biased but I have to look at funding sources, their GW stuff is so one sided.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 11, 2013
Scottar:
I find it amusing that yet you denigrate sites I/others link as biased, you link to sites/blogs that are plainly biased. Mr Watts', probably being the greatest.
Your hypocracy goes further by accusing Mr Muller of being wrong/incompetent, when prior to this research he was lauded by your ilk for being a sceptic. You cannot have it both ways.
I provided a link to a peer-reviwed paper published in the Journal of Geophysical Research that refutes your statements. That is unbiased ( in a sane world ).
Further, you began this exercise in denial by assuming that because cooler, more northern latitude data sites were deleted from the record - that this would automatically bias temps upwards. You were told that basic understanding of climatology would lead you to the opposite - that it is rate of change of temp that is of concern and that more northward stations would see greater warming in a world undergoing AGW.
Scottar
1.4 / 5 (11) Jul 14, 2013
Runrig

You are full of the AGW mantra. You dismiss the relevancy of the data that shows AGW is not what the UN claims to be. It was pointed out that rural stations where being deleted from the "cooked" data.

Icecap.us has very credible experts from all fields including climatologists, physicists in every field from geophysics to atmospheric physics, etc. who support and post on that site.

Here are some more posts that show what hooey the IPCC is:

pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/03/19/an-example-of-why-a-global-average-temperature-anomaly-is-not-an-effective-metric-of-climate/

An Example Of Why A Global Average Temperature Anomaly Is Not An Effective Metric Of Climate

www.cfact.org/201...-gammon/

A Gentlemanly Discussion of Climate Change: S. Fred Singer v. John Nielsen-Gammon

And Muller was not the skeptic made out to be if you read through the posts on the The Register.
Scottar
1.4 / 5 (11) Jul 14, 2013
Brevity is the wit of fools and refuge of scoundrels, invites all kinds of spin. To all the ad-humanism: Confusious say, One who resorts to name calling and ad-hominid retorts has little to go on when full of crap.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 14, 2013

You are full of the AGW mantra. You dismiss the relevancy of the data that shows AGW is not what the UN claims to be. It was pointed out that rural stations where being deleted from the "cooked" data"


And I said that removal of data from northern station would result in the opposite - a bias towards cooling ( if anything ). Because we are concerned the rate of change of temperature AND IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW HOT/COLD the data is, the first derivative will reveal greater change. It is your reflexive "conspiracy" mindset that cannot see beyond to the science, let alone understand it. It is this trait ( along with "socialist" nonsense ) and the idea that "I" know better than the expert, that denialists come at AGW ( having now fro the most part finally admitted to GW - bar a few crackpots ). All these, by the balance of probability, are non-starters and unreasonable. Evidence against AGW is not ignored it is just weighed against the mountain of evidence to the contrary.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Jul 20, 2013
"Idiot spambot. That's only true if you're measuring isolated parts of the system. The whole system's temperature increases." - UbVonTard Wrong again, my little Conservative Moron. The temperature of the system of boiling water remains static while the water turns to steam.
Idiot. that's only true if the heat source is conductive to the water. We're talking about radiative heating (from above).

It is a property of phase transitions that 11 year olds know, and you are clueless about.

What a shame you never graduated from grade 6.

Look at it this way, dung for brains, if the steam were hotter than the water it would cool by heating the water, thereby negating the implied reason for it's existence.
Idiot. Steam away from the water can be heated well beyond the temperature of the water.

Poor Dung for Brains UbVonTard. He knows less about how the world works than an 11 year old.
Poor spambot hasn't the intelligence of a toddler.

Scottar
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 04, 2013
Runrig

You missed the forest of evidence for the trees. As Dr. Fred Singer observed:

"Phil Jones [of the University of East Anglia] has stated that global temperatures have been flat for 17 years. "

"Problems with surface measurements are notorious. Recording stations are sparse, even nonexistent in vital global locations, most particularly throughout the Southern Hemisphere and in remote polar regions. After 1970 the number of reporting stations dropped suddenly and drastically. (Stations at airports have seemed to be unaffected, and may even have increased in number.) ..... urban heat islands have developed over time, not to mention problems resulting from faulty placements of temperature recording instruments which have to be "corrected" by applying subjective 'homogenizing' (tuning) procedures. ... according to IPCC figures, the reported global temperature increase between 1942 and 1995 was approximately +0.5° C, while US and Western European data showed approximately zero."
Scottar
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 04, 2013
Runrig

If you read that Forb's article:

A Gentlemanly Discussion of Climate Change: S. Fred Singer v. John Nielsen-Gammon,

the rest of the AGW issues are explained away. One again you use weak strawmans arguments and out -of context extracted statements to support your subjective arguments. I've seen it many times with you AGWers.
VendicarE
3 / 5 (4) Aug 04, 2013
"If you read that Forb's article" - ScotTard

Is Forbes still publishing the denialist rantings of Fred (smoking doesn't cause cancer) Singer?

Singer hasn't had any scientific relevance for the last 40 years, and has the respect of zero percent of the scientific community due to his involvement with conservative political propaganda and campaigns of various forms of scientific fraud.

Do you really think that using Singer is helping your Denialist cause?

Bahahahahahahah.......
VendicarE
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 04, 2013
"Phil Jones [of the University of East Anglia] has stated that global temperatures have been flat for 17 years." - ScotTard

Just as they have been flat for similar periods over the last 150 years as the globe has warmed.

http://wattsupwit...5001.gif
VendicarE
3 / 5 (4) Aug 04, 2013
"Problems with surface measurements are notorious. Recording stations are sparse, even nonexistent in vital global locations, most particularly throughout the Southern Hemisphere and in remote polar regions." - ScotTard

This is why Kevin Trenberth has said,

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't"

Republican Budget cuts to science are partly responsible for that travesty.
VendicarE
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 04, 2013
"The temperature of the system of boiling water remains static while the water turns to steam." - Vendicar

"Idiot. that's only true if the heat source is conductive to the water. We're talking about radiative heating (from above)." - UbVonTard

Poor UbVonTard. Now he thinks that the principles of thermodynamics change if the heat comes from above.

No doubt he thinks that light only moves from left to right since that is the way it is shown in his grade school science books.

The fact that UbVonTard didn't know - due to his vast ignorance of science - K-8 science in this case, is that ice does not change temperature while it melts, since the energy that is causing the melting goes into the phase change of the water from solid to liquid.

UbVonTard. Ignorant of basic grade school science.

Moron.
VendicarE
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 04, 2013
"You dismiss the relevancy of the data that shows AGW is not what the UN claims to be. It was pointed out that rural stations where being deleted from the "cooked" data." - ScotTard

And by removing them, the computed warming trend has actually been REDUCED, not INCREASED, as would support your dishonest implication.

Do you intend to be a moron for the rest of your life?
VendicarE
3 / 5 (2) Aug 04, 2013
ScotTard... Your gentlemanly discussion link contains the following graphic...

http://www.cfact....raph.jpg

The title says "no global warming for 16 years"

Yet the actual data, plotted here.

http://www.woodfo....7/trend

Shows that there is a 0.06'C warming over that period.

That fact makes everyone on the CFACT board of directors a Liar... Doesn't it?

What does that say about Fred. (smoking doesn't cause cancer) Singer?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Aug 04, 2013
"The temperature of the system of boiling water remains static while the water turns to steam." - Vendicar

"Idiot. that's only true if the heat source is conductive to the water. We're talking about radiative heating (from above)." - Uba

Poor Uba. Now he thinks that the principles of thermodynamics change if the heat comes from above.

No doubt he thinks that light only moves from left to right since that is the way it is shown in his grade school science books.

The fact that Uba didn't know - due to his vast ignorance of science - K-8 science in this case, is that ice does not change temperature while it melts, since the energy that is causing the melting goes into the phase change of the water from solid to liquid.

Uba. Ignorant of basic grade school science.

Moron.
LOL. The stupid spambot is insisting the atmosphere can't be warmer than the ice. LOL.

VendicarE = stupid spambot