Search This Blog

Friday, August 30, 2013

Global Warming Is A LIE!!! The Earth is COOLING and the data charts and graphs (not being faked by CRU this time) Prove It!!!

To paraphrase Barack Obama, I don't have much patience for people who tell lies about the climate!


A commenter who calls himself Canucklehead said, "Consensus has been reached on the topic of global climate change, Radar. And, shockingly, you're on the wrong side. "

Oh, really?  Well, I prefer science to mythology and fairy tales and lies...So I must warn you, you are entering a science zone, where actual evidence is presented rather than fables and mythology and lies.

The globe is cooling rather than warming.  I can prove it.  Read it and weep!


Ten years of ‘accelerated global warming’ ?

Data doesn’t support Obama’s claim
Guest essay by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
During the July 2013 U.S. Senate hearing at which Roger Pielke Jr. and Roy Spencer gave stellar testimony to the visible discomfiture of the climate-extremist witnesses, none of the “Democrat” Senators and none of the people they had chosen to testify before them was at all anxious to defend Mr. Obama’s assertion that over the past decade global warming has been accelerating at an unforeseen rate.
At a fund-raiser for the “Democratic” Congressional Campaign Committee in Chicago May 29, he had said, “We … know that the climate is warming faster than anybody anticipated five or ten years ago.” He had added, “I don’t have much patience for people who deny climate change.”
Well, I deny that the climate is warming faster than anybody anticipated five or ten years ago. But I deny it not because I take an aprioristic position opposite to Mr Obama’s aprioristic position, but because science is done by measurement, not by parroting the Party Line. And the measurements do not support the Party Line.
Let me demonstrate. First, what warming does the IPCC anticipate in its upcoming and much-leaked Fifth Assessment Report?
clip_image002[4]
The graph above, adapted from Figs. 11.33ab in the draft report, for which I am an expert reviewer, shows that from 2005-2050 (most of the past ten years fall within that period) the models expect an approximately linear warming of about 0.4 to 1.0 Cº per 30 years (this range is also explicitly stated in paragraph 11.3.6.3). That is equivalent to 1.33 to 3.33 Cº/century, with a mid-range estimate of 2.33 Cº/century.
The IPCC’s models’ mid-range projection implies that around 0.12 Cº of warming should happen over five years, and o.23 Cº over ten years. An eighth to a quarter of a Celsius degree: those are the benchmarks. Previous IPCC reports made broadly similar near-term projections.
What, then, is the consensus among the monthly global mean surface or lower-troposphere datasets about whether the climate is warming “faster than anybody anticipated five or ten years ago”? Or whether it is warming at all?
There are three terrestrial datasets: HadCRUt4, GISS, and NCDC. There are two satellite datasets: RSS and UAH. To forestall the usual futile allegations of cherry-picking, we shall look at all five of them.
For each dataset, two graphs will be displayed: the most recent 60 months of global temperature anomalies, and the most recent 120 months.
The graph will display the spline-curve of the monthly anomalies in dark blue, with a thicker light-blue trend-line, which is simply the least-squares linear-regression trend on the data. Over short periods, no more complex trend need be determined.
Nor is there any need to allow for seasonality, not only because the graphs analyze data over multiples of 12 months but also because globally the seasons cancel each other out, so that natural variability tends to make any seasonal pattern near-impossible to detect.
Linear regression determines the underlying trend in a dataset over a given period as the slope of the unique straight line through the data that minimizes the sum of the squares of the absolute differences or “residuals” between the data-points corresponding to each time interval in the data and on the trend-line.
The graphs, therefore, give a fair indication of whether global mean temperatures at or near the surface have been rising or falling over the past five or ten years.
Note, however, that – particularly with highly volatile datasets such as the global temperature anomalies – a statistical trend is not a tool for prediction. It indicates only what has happened, not what may or will happen.
And what has happened is, as we shall see, grievously at odds with the Party Line.
We begin with the terrestrial datasets.
GISS, five years:
clip_image004[4]
GISS, ten years:
clip_image006[4]
HadCRUT4, five years:
clip_image008[4]
HadCRUt4, ten years:
clip_image010[4]
NCDC, five years:
clip_image012[4]
NCDC, ten years:
clip_image014[4]
The mean of the anomalies on all three terrestrial datasets, five years:
clip_image016[4]
The mean of the anomalies on all three terrestrial datasets, ten years:
clip_image018[4]
Now for the two satellite datasets. RSS, five years:
clip_image020[4]
RSS, ten years:
clip_image022[4]
UAH, five years:
clip_image024[4]
UAH, ten years:
clip_image026[4]
The mean of the anomalies on the two satellite datasets, five years:
clip_image028[4]
The mean of the anomalies on the two satellite datasets, ten years:
clip_image030[4]
The mean of the anomalies on all five datasets, five years:
clip_image032[4]
The mean of the anomalies on all five datasets, ten years:
clip_image034[4]
The only dataset that shows any warming at all is UAH over ten years. The warming is a not particularly dizzying one twenty-fifth of a Celsius degree over ten years, equivalent to two-fifths of a degree per century.
The RSS satellite dataset, on the other hand, now shows no global warming at all for an impressive 199 months, or 16 years 7 months:
clip_image036[4]
Not much “acceleration” there. Will it reach 200 months? I’ll report next month.
Finally, here is the monthly Global Warming Prediction Index, which compares the projections backcast by the modelers to 2005 and published in the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report with the real-world outturn as measured by the two satellite datasets.
clip_image038[4]
The lower bound of the orange zone is the IPCC’s low-end projection. Warming should be occurring at a minimum of 1.33 Cº/century. The thick bright red line is the IPCC’s mid-range projection: warming should be occurring at 2.33 Cº/century.
The real-world trend, represented by the thick bright blue trend line, shows global temperatures declining since January 2005 at a rate equivalent to almost a quarter of a Celsius degree (half a Fahrenheit degree) per century.
You may think that going to the trouble of producing so many graphs is overkill. Yet when I first spoke up at the U.N. climate conference in Doha and pointed out that there had been no global warming for 16 years the delegates were furious. So were the news media. One reason for their unreason: they simply did not know the facts.
One would have thought that among all the hours of hand-wringing on the air and pages of moaning in print about “global warming”, most of the news media would be faithfully reporting the monthly temperature anomalies. But no. The facts do not fit the Party Line, so they are not reported. They are consigned to the Memory Hole.
As for Mr. Obama’s statement about “acceleration”, he was plain wrong. Instead of the warming equivalent to 2.33 Cº/century global warming that had been “anticipated”, there has really been no change in global temperature at all over the past five or ten years.
Will somebody tell the “President”?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There is no evidence that the President or any of his lackeys and cronies give a rip about science at all and their agenda is pretty obvious.   Democrats like Maxine Waters and Barney Frank made darned sure that, with the help of ACORN, the housing crisis would take down Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and cause a financial crisis that would scare the voters of 2008 into believing the empty rhetoric of "Hope and Change."  Now their pet "scientists" have to ignore the evidence.  The YouTube at the bottom of the post is hilarious as a scientist babbles incoherently when being presented with actual evidence that the entire global warming narrative is complete BS.

This entire Global Warming/Climate Change propaganda program is designed to take money from your pockets and insert it into the pockets of radical Socialists, green-nuts and greedy opportunists like Al Gore.  Don't be fooled!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


A Biblical Perspective on Environmentalism: Demand for Draconian Measures


Reprinted with permission from As I See It, which is available free by writing to the editor at dkutilek@juno.com. Read the series so far.
One of the favorite tactics of environmental extremists and their invariably uninformed “celebrity” spokespersons is to claim with panicked voice that we are on the brink, the very precipice of irremediable environmental and ecological disaster, and that mankind’s very existence and continuation as a species, along with life itself on earth hangs in utterly precarious balance, frighteningly close to the tipping point of no return. And, as a consequence, immediate and sweeping government-mandated and rigidly enforced changes in everything from toilet tank water capacity to grossly cost-ineffective and unworkable “alternate energy” sources to automobile mileage standards to the closing of coal and nuclear power plants are proposed and imposed on the populace, “for their own good,” regardless of how disruptive, expensive, inconvenient, even dangerous and unnecessary the forced changes may be—and inevitably are. “Never waste a crisis”—even if it is a manufactured, fictitious crisis—is the watchword of those who wish to seize power and dominate and domineer their perceived “inferiors” in the populace.
Among the most absurd of the draconian measures proposed, and not far from being imposed, is a so-called “carbon tax” to restrict, even punish those who add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere through the combustion—burning—of such non-renewable fuels as coal, oil and natural gas. That carbon dioxide—a minuscule .03% of the atmosphere—is a “greenhouse gas” is true; that that is a bad thing, is false. Without carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, along with the other, much more influential greenhouse gases (water vapor by far number one among them), the earth would trap less heat during the day and lose much more during the night. These gases which trap solar heat moderate the daily temperature swings on planet earth and make life possible. Without them, day time highs would regularly and substantially exceed 100 F. and at night the temperature would plunge below freezing, making agriculture—and human existence—impossible.
Furthermore, carbon dioxide is essential to all plant growth, as essential as water, sunlight, nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium. Without it, not a single grain of wheat, not a single tomato, not a single apple—no food plants of any kind—would grow. It is not a toxic gas, nor a pollutant, but a necessary component of “life on earth as we know it.” Tightly sealed greenhouses in winter actually run short of carbon dioxide as the plants inside exhaust the limited supply in the air, and simply cease growing. Greenhouse owners have actually found it necessary to release compressed carbon dioxide into the greenhouses in winter to keep plants growing. And what’s more, experiments have shown that above-atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide actually stimulate more rapid plant growth. Increased atmospheric carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels could well be a boon and blessing to agriculture and forestry, rather than the dooms-day threat the radicals always portray it to be.
One subject I have never heard addressed by anybody in the carbon dioxide/global warming controversy is this: was not all the carbon now found in coal, oil and natural gas (assuming these latter two are of biological origin; coal certainly is), present in the atmosphere at some time in the past before they became stored in the precursors of coal, oil and natural gas? This would certainly mean that the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere in the past was much higher than at present, and yet—there was none of the run-away, irremediable global warming that the environmental doomists boldly assert is about to happen to us. How is it that a much higher atmospheric CO2 concentration in the past which obviously did not cause run away global warming then, will yet somehow most assuredly do so in the immediate future?
Furthermore, in spite of the embarrassing exposure in recent years of various “global warming” scenarios, projections, and computer models as either radically in error or deliberately and knowingly falsified to support the radical agenda, and the fact that the last 15 years have shown no measurable increase in mean global temperature, even so, the extremists continue to demand that the most draconian measures be immediately imposed on the populace to reduce carbon emissions. A huge “carbon tax” on all “fossil fuels” has been proposed to punish financially those who emit “too much” carbon—power utilities, oil and coal producing companies, airlines, trucking companies, and the like. All such taxes on business are of course and of necessity invariably passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices. Direct taxes on private citizens—for houses that are deemed ‘too big” or insulation that is declared “inadequate” or whatever other excuses the bureaucrats can dream up—and naturally higher fuel taxes of all kinds will be included in the mix.
Such policy, if and when imposed, is guaranteed to dramatically suppress American economic activity and damage and destroy businesses and jobs (the actual real motive behind the “carbon tax” proposal) via markedly higher costs of doing business, costs which foreign competitors, in nations without a carbon tax, will not be paying. India and China are the worst atmospheric polluters on the planet, and among the least efficient users of fossil fuels to power industry, thereby adding the most carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, yet they are not the targets of any of the greens’ ire and rhetoric. Hmmm? In recent years, American carbon emissions, rather than continuing to increase, have actually been reduced (partly due to the now five-years-long economic recession) to the level of the mid-1990s. Yet we are singled out as the global bad guys.
If carbon dioxide is really the most-threatening environmental problem we face, why do the greens oppose two courses of action that would either greatly reduce the use of carbon-based energy, or “sequester” “excess” carbon naturally? Of course I speak of nuclear electrical generation on the one hand and wide-scale planting of trees as carbon traps on the other. While some showcase the two actual cases of nuclear reactor melt-downs—Chernobyl, for instance (the product of collectivist government incompetence and bad design, by the way) and the Japanese tsunami of 2012—it remains a fact, that fewer people have died in all nuclear power production accidents and incidents combined over the last 60 years than die annually in the mining, transportation, and use of coal for electric generation. Besides the bonus of carbon-free electricity (if that is really the goal), more nuclear power generation would greatly reduce the environmental “footprint” of coal—fewer and smaller mining pits and spoil banks, along with reduced truck and train traffic from the pits and mines to the power plants.
As for the other option which the greens oppose, trees are extremely efficient fixers and long-term holders of atmospheric carbon, and could be planted by the hundreds of billions annually in our cities and towns, parks, farms and highway right-of-ways. Besides capturing carbon, they would keep our cities and houses cooler in summer (reducing the need for air-conditioning and the electricity it requires), reduce dust in the air as well as reduce urban noise levels, conserve soil and water resources, and ultimately provide the whole spectrum of tree products from food to fuel to lumber to paper to esthetics to wildlife habitat. That greens are vehemently opposed to employing trees as carbon traps to address the supposed carbon dioxide problem suggests that their real agenda is other than that stated by them.
Some, rightly it seems, believe this is the real environmentalist agenda: to destroy American capitalism, by whatever means, and using whatever excuse seems plausible. The government already mandates forced “conservation” via regressively smaller and smaller cars (which are exponentially more dangerous to their occupants in crashes than larger vehicles), attempts at compelling the purchase and use of much more expensive, toxic mercury-containing light bulbs, subsidizing grossly inefficient “alternate energy” schemes, dictating the design of washing machines and the whole enchilada of bureaucratic meddling in the lives of private citizens.
Because electric power is needed around the clock, 24/7/365, and not just when the sun shines or the wind blows, much vaunted “alternate energy sources” will—barring some very dramatic improvement in storage of wind-generated and solar-generated power beyond batteries—never play anything more than a relatively minor supporting, supplementing role to power generation by burning fuel (coal, oil, gas, wood), falling water (hydroelectric), or the heat of nuclear decay. Even geothermal—available around the clock—will never be a major component of electrical generation or heating purposes because locations suitable for it are few and far between (except in volcanic Iceland!). Yes, there are places where wind or solar power are the best, most cost-effective choice—remote locations: a windmill in the middle of a cow pasture which can work intermittently to keep a stock watering tank full (though even these sometimes need manual or powered pumping if the winds are inadequate), or solar water heating in very sunny locations or where fuel costs are prohibitive (e.g., the Negev in Israel or the American desert Southwest).
The sum of the matter: on the basis of very dubious evidence, and sometimes deliberately deceptive claims, some are attempting to stampede us into a panicked submission to extreme measures which are allegedly both necessary and “for our own good,” though they will certainly cause a much heavier tax burden and a much reduced standard of living, along with a much more pervasive and invasive presence of an overbearing government. They wish to mandate a “cure” for a “disease” which more than likely doesn’t even exist, much less threaten our existence. The prescribed “cure” is in this case much worse than the disease.

Doug Kutilek is the editor of www.kjvonly.org, which opposes KJVOism. He has been researching and writing in the area of Bible texts and versions for more than 35 years. He has a BA in Bible from Baptist Bible College (Springfield, MO), an MA in Hebrew Bible from Hebrew Union College and a ThM in Bible exposition from Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). His writings have appeared in numerous publications.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Actual science tells us that carbon dioxide is plant food and, if the globe would warm a bit, the crops would grow bigger and farther North.  Bring on Global Warming if we can, it would benefit mankind!
Good thing Dr. Cullen is not a medical doctor...she'd probably be prescribing bloodletting you to help you get over a fever!  That is, if her knowledge of the climate was converted to medical knowledge, as this babble below makes rather clear.  To quote from the Adam Sandler movie, Billy Madison:

Principal: Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.


22 comments:

radar said...

I challenged the trolls who claim the climate is warming and said I could prove that it isn't. Here is the irrefutable evidence.

Crickets...Darwinists do not have the character to admit they are wrong.

Ted S. said...

Mr. Radar,

Your blog is an interesting example of a person blinded by bias and passion and an extreme adversarial stance, on a number of issues. I would even consider it an extreme example of such a problem (witness your use of the term "Darwinists" on the subject of climate change), which I think is most certainly due to your inability to examine your own beliefs with a critical, dispassionate eye. Perhaps you wish to try it sometime.

In my present sprightly age (mid 60s), I've long ago learned that being skeptical of one's own present beliefs as well as those one perceives as 'opposing' my view can actually be a constructive way to gain knowledge and come to more enlightened positions, for the simple reason that one avoids being stuck with positions that one then learns, lo and behold and with an open mind, are actually not true.

Looks to me like you're stuck with the opposite approach. But that is a subject for a separate discussion. How about, using this post as an example, you allow me to demonstrate how your bias makes you overlook some pretty apparent flaws in your "argument" and even attempt to proclaim victory.

Let me say up front that on the climate change issue, I am indeed a skeptic. A skeptic in both directions. How d'you like that? It's such an extraordinarily complex issue and at the same time such an important one. There are obvious interests on both sides that one must be weary of - all the more important to try to stick to the facts and to reason.

Be that as it may, Mr. Radar... there are a number of problems with the material you present in this post. Let me point them out to you.

Yes, it is certainly possible that Obama misspoke when he said that “We … know that the climate is warming faster than anybody anticipated five or ten years ago.” I can't find the full context of his remarks, and I don't know what data he used as the basis for those remark(s). But when somebody puts scare quotes around words like "President", I smell a rat. Partisan BS, that kind of thing. And guess what? The data you show here don't actually prove President Obama wrong.

Problem 1: The first article you pasted here, with its numerous graphs. I look at them all and I say to myself, wow, that's impressive, 17 charts, all with that down or sideways trend.

Until I take a closer look. Because quantity doesn't mean jack if the quality isn't there. Right? What's the point of having a pile of fool's gold, no matter how big the pile? Right?

Problem is, every one of these charts is about 'mean surface temperature'. Every single one.

Interesting.

President Obama spoke about 'global warming'. Last time I checked the Earth wasn't flat. The world is more than its surface. It's a globe.

We inhabit the surface, so it's natural for us to think of that as the world. But the climate system is a bit bigger than that. That's what I mean by being skeptical about this kind of stuff.

Remember how I told you about how your bias makes you blind? Well here you have it. The answer is actually staring you in the face, except you're blind to it. It lies in the testimony that you've included a link to.

You're not a kind person, that's pretty clear when I see how you unfairly and ridiculously malign Dr. Cullen in the paragraph right before that link ("At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought").

Take a closer look. Dr. Cullen is giving you the answers, while Sen. Vitter is trying to engage in a cheap, meaningless game of gotcha.

Blogger tells me my post is too long, so I have to split it in two. Second part coming up.

radar said...

Well, Ted, let's not let evidence get in the way of your opinion!

Dr. Cullen is in a position of power and is, in concert with the Obama Administration, has been blocking oil, gas and coal harvesting as well as applications for nuclear energy plants. These ideologues are hurting the American people by raising prices on everything by making power costs artificially high. So, no, I have no kind words for people who are responsible for folks losing their jobs and houses and winding up homeless or renting trailers or slumlord apartments.

As for the charts and graphs, yes, they are measuring temperatures as detected by satellites. However, if you have read this blog before you would know that there is a great deal of evidence that people have been "gaming" surface weather stations to give artificially high readings. Despite this, the accumulation of surface temperature readings show the globe is cooling.

Beyond that, we have deep-diving drones that go below the surface and measure the temperatures of the ocean below the surface. The last post I did on those readings also indicated a cooling trend, not warming.

Furthermore, the percentage of the atmosphere of CO2 is so tiny that it cannot have an impact on temperatures to any degree. CO2 is plant food, so when more CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere the plants just take it in and grow faster.

Dr. Cullen is either inept or an ideologue who is one of those like the scientists of the CRU and IPCC who faked evidence to try to assert that the planet was in danger from man-made global warming that would begin to flood the cities and bring on the deaths of polar bears and all sorts of other nonsense.

Dr. Roy Spencer, far more credentialed and able to discuss the climate than Dr. Cullen, and Anthony Watt are experts in climatology and have been pointing out to the world the BS that Al Gore and his cohorts have been pushing. Meanwhile Gore flies private jets and has a mansion that takes up the space and energy used up by two entire blocks of my subdivision, it appears!!! If Al Gore was worried about carbon footprints, why is his the size of a Sasquatch? If Barack Obama is concerned, why would he send a private jet to go and bring back his DOG on vacation? A private jet to get a dog? I love dogs, but come on!

radar said...

I would be really interested in what kind of useful information you got out of Dr. Cullen? She was just blathering on with no actual answers and it is no surprise. The Earth is NOT warming. If it WAS warming, we couldn't do anything about it. You see, the primary influence on the climate is the Sun. When the Sun is more active, the temperature tends to go up and, when the Sun is less active, then temperatures go down. The climate is very complex, with interactions between surface temperatures of the oceans and land, the cloud covering, the precipitation and snow covers and large systems like El Nino. Meteorologists have a very hard time predicting the weather one week in advance. Anyone who watches the weather report realizes this.

So why should I give Dr. Cullen a pass when she is trying to cause more harm to the economy, which causes more harm to people, which then causes human suffering? She is part of the problem and the sooner she loses her position or changes her mind, one, the better!

I would rather be critical of Dr. Cullen than see another 10,000 families lose their primary source of income and face homelessness and misery. So maybe SHE is the unkind one and I am the one who cares more about people than money?

Ted S. said...

Hold your horses there, Mr. Radar. I said a second part was coming, and I apologize for not being the world's fastest typist.

Okay, here we go. To wit:

1:04 Sen. Vitter; And so you think the surface temperature increase has continued in the last 10 to 15 years?"

[...]

1:40 Dr. Heidi Cullen: "... the warming has gone into other components of our climate system, most notably the deep ocean"


There's your clue. If warming continues elsewhere in the system, but not on the surface, then global warming can certainly still be accelerating.

So - is that the case? Apparently so.

A cooling trend on the surface doesn't necessarily contradict a global warming trend. If the warming continues in other ways and we'd have to rely on people like you - well don't take this personally, but we'd be in trouble. Trouble with a capital T.

Problem 2:: Perhaps you understand the difference between weather and climate. It wouldn't make sense, for example, to look outside when it's snowing and say that that is evidence against a global warming trend. Perhaps you understand, but perhaps you don't.

So it goes - as counter-intuitive as that may seem - with 5- or 10-year trends.

You may perhaps think that you've done service to "long-term" trends, but consider that there's long-term and there's long-term. A year is a long time to you or me, not so long in geological or climate terms.

Please examine this graph.

It shows how short-term trends (even 10-15 years long) can belie a longer trend. Something even as long as 5 or 10 years can not give us the "bigger picture". I can't think of a better way to demonstrate the mistake in the thinking that was presented here. It's akin to claiming that the sun will never rise by pointing out data that

Regarding the second article you copied here, it was written by a theology scholar with little apparent knowledge of the subject, in multiple ways. A big clue to this is that he parrots a rather ignorant talking point - a strawman argument if you will, as some have pointed out - that environmentalists supposedly claim that carbon dioxide is a toxic gas. Which is nonsense of course. This makes it apparent that this author (as well as you, Mr Radar, apparently, since you've chosen to copy this article as somehow significant or paste-worthy - but please let us know if you have reservations about this author) have failed to grasp the actual argument of global warming. Or even the greenhouse effect. A pretty significant omission.

He's pretty ignorant on this subject - sorry to have to be so frank, but why waste time on people like him? He probably knows a lot about his area of expertise, and I'm sure he can educate himself on a number of subjects, but on this one he hasn't spent the time.

Be that as it may. The central argument of your post on this important subject doesn't add up. See Problems cited above. I remain a skeptic, and on the fence on this subject. I will continue to search for answers.

May you do the same.

Ted S. said...

"let's not let evidence get in the way of your opinion"

Let's not. Oh and your opinion too.

I'm going to have dinner now, maybe watch a DVD.

Ted S. said...

Hi again.

"The last post I did on those readings also indicated a cooling trend, not warming."

This was in reference to deep diving drones. I'd be most obliged if you could provide the link to this article.

radar said...

Ted,

So I present the entire spectrum of the charts representing the findings of various satellites measuring the entire EARTH over the course of five, ten and even over more than sixteen years and you give us what? A cute chart that moves and catches the eye? You want to take that and ignore the well-supported datasets that are irrefutable scientifically? That chart was just taken from faked information and we already know this, which is why the data that site used was discredited already.

Okay. So you say you are a skeptic. You are not moved by the datasets? Oh, because they are SURFACE readings? You really believe that this Dr. Cullen can pass off the climate as warming but you cannot tell from surface readings?

Suppose you tell me the last time the weather report discussed the temperatures 600 feet below the surface of the ocean? How many people plan their weekends based on the temperatures 20,000 above sea level? Do farmers deal with drought conditions because it is hot two thousand feet below the ground? I am just curious exactly what you think Dr.Cullen failed to pull out of her hat?

Ask yourself why Al Gore and his cronies invested in carbon offsets at the same time he was promoting his fake global warming alarmism. Maybe do some digging into what the offsets actually were. Factories that produce goods and services are to be taxed for emitting "greenhouse gas" so that the carbon exchanges could then do what, exactly? I already know, but I am just curious if you know. Do you know?

Anyway, I just posted a bit of information from 2011, a time when the Anthony Watts-promoted surface stations audit produced an amazing number of weather stations that had been changed to produce artificially high temperatures. Now maybe five or six would be coincidence. Oh, and more than that, the people who were reporting on the temperatures in North America? They were using a lot of the stations that had been changed to give us warmer readings and ignoring stations that were not. If you truly are a skeptic, I have given you a couple of things to research...I would guess that you are already researching the drones, yes?

Ted S. said...

This is what I mean by "blinded by bias". You pick a "side" or a conclusion and then stick to it, rendering you unable to argue any points on that subject coherently.

"So I present the entire spectrum of the charts representing the findings of various satellites measuring the entire EARTH over the course of five, ten and even over more than sixteen years and you give us what?"

I gave you two problems, both highlighted, neither of which you seem to have understood. Both of them render the cherrypicked dataset here useless, though. You didn't show that the climate is cooling.

"You are not moved by the datasets? Oh, because they are SURFACE readings? You really believe that this Dr. Cullen can pass off the climate as warming but you cannot tell from surface readings?"

Yes, obviously I'm not moved by the datasets, for the reasons clearly explained in my previous comments. It is "global warming" and "climate change", not "global surface warming" and "surface climate change". The whole planet is an interconnected system. In this case the claim is that the warming process is continuing in the deep oceans, and that is actually supported by facts. Which were in the article I linked to. And which it appears you did not read.

Here is the article.

Here is a pertinent graph from the article.

It shows a pretty drastic increase in thermal energy in the oceans, as mentioned by Dr. Cullen.

"Suppose you tell me the last time the weather report discussed the temperatures 600 feet below the surface of the ocean? How many people plan their weekends based on the temperatures 20,000 above sea level? Do farmers deal with drought conditions because it is hot two thousand feet below the ground?"

The weather report doesn't discuss these things, only the outcomes. That's why they call it the weather report, not the global climate report.

"I am just curious exactly what you think Dr.Cullen failed to pull out of her hat?"

I don't know why you think she failed to pull something out of her hat, but if you'd care to watch it with an open mind, you would see that she pointed out two valuable items of information, one that warming continues in the oceans and the other that regional climate trends (droughts in one place, increases in precipitation in another) can be hidden in larger-scale averages.

I will not waste too much time chasing conspiracy theories on this subject, for the simple reason that this argument cuts both ways - there are economic interests on both sides of this equation, and we can spend all day trading those kinds of stories. I will listen to scientists and skeptics on both sides though.

Ted S. said...

"Anyway, I just posted a bit of information from 2011, a time when the Anthony Watts-promoted surface stations audit produced an amazing number of weather stations that had been changed to produce artificially high temperatures. Now maybe five or six would be coincidence. Oh, and more than that, the people who were reporting on the temperatures in North America? They were using a lot of the stations that had been changed to give us warmer readings and ignoring stations that were not. If you truly are a skeptic, I have given you a couple of things to research...I would guess that you are already researching the drones, yes?"

I'll have a look at this at my leisure. It doesn't affect the fact that the data you presented above doesn't show that the climate is cooling.

I'm curious if this is a global thing, that people in Russia and China and so on are all moving their thermometers closer to heating units. If they're not, then we'd see a trend that the US is warming up but nowhere else is.

I'm presuming that Anthony Watts isn't making this allegation about the deep ocean data though.

radar said...

http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-climate-is-cooling-and-warming.html

Now, if Dr. Cullen is asserting that there is warming going on somewhere that does not show up on the satellite data, then necessarily there is also cooling going on somewhere that does not show up on the graphs so that the overall temperature is cooling.

I put up a link that shows you all how myriad weather stations were gamed to produce hotter temperatures, therefore we know that if she is referring to weather station data, we already know it has been rigged to show higher temperatures. Meanwhile the article you posted is old news, actually the IPCC was surprised to find that new information about ocean temperatures and the way they have been measured has made the previous report they would have made moot...because there were errors made in that study that have now been discovered.

Again, if the overall temperature of the Earth was cooling and the ocean was warming, then the land must have been cooling even more than we thought to allow for the entire system to be cooling.

radar said...

"The draft SPM apparently fails to mention[9] that 30-year warming trends have declined each year since peaking in 2003. Or that the latest 10-year period (2003-12) is the coolest decade[10] since satellite records began in 1979."

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/31/can-the-ipcc-do-revolutionary-science/#more-92826

radar said...

http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

Ted S. said...

"Now, if Dr. Cullen is asserting that there is warming going on somewhere that does not show up on the satellite data, then necessarily there is also cooling going on somewhere that does not show up on the graphs so that the overall temperature is cooling."

Maybe I missed where there is a graph that actually shows that the "overall temperature is cooling". By that and given the context of this discussion, I'm assuming you mean the atmospheric, surface and ocean temperatures all in one.

Do you have such a graph or study or dataset?

If not, are you just making up your claim that the "overall temperature is cooling"?

So far I've seen a dataset for atmospheric temperatures (Dr. Roy Spencer's link above) and a limited dataset for surface temperatures (only 5-10 years) - both of these show a sideways or mild declining trend. The latter is not yet significant since we have seen such apparent trends before and they turned out to be false signals. And then we've seen a dataset for ocean temperatures, which showed a sharp increase. To me that's not enough to make a claim that "the overall temperature is cooling". On the contrary, I suspect that once the warming of the ocean is factored in, it will continue to show a warming trend.

Again, I treat both sides with skepticism. If you have data to back up your claims, you can easily persuade me by pointing me to such data. However, you've shown yourself to use dishonest methods in the past, and so I'm, well, skeptical of your claims.

I won't hold that against global warming skeptics in general and will continue to try to find reliable data and learned opinions on the subject. Anthony Watts certainly is interesting reading.

"The draft SPM apparently fails to mention[9] that 30-year warming trends have declined each year since peaking in 2003. Or that the latest 10-year period (2003-12) is the coolest decade[10] since satellite records began in 1979."

We already addressed this earlier in this thread. It's too early to tell whether this is a long-term trend or a false signal.

radar said...

Well, Ted, if the cooling is evident from 1979 to now, then that seems to indicate that we are in no danger of dangerous warming.

Secondly, the history of mankind shows us that global cooling is a great danger (witness the famous Year Without A Summer) following the 1815 eruption-exposion of Mount Tamboro in Indonesia. That volcano spewed so much volcanic ash into the air that temperatures were cooler by from about 2/3 to 4/3 of a degree Fahrenheit. Several smaller eruptions in the Pacific Ring of Fire in the years leading up to Tamboro may have been a small factor.

1815 was an unmitigated disaster, with crop failures and massive starvation from global cooling.

Now go back in time to the Medieval Warming Period, when grapes grew in England and the Vikings established farms and ranches in Greenland and the East coast of North America. Europe prospered from the warmer weather which yielded bumper crops and the culture and influence of Scandinavian nations and the British Isles were boosted by the conditions.

The climate fluctuates and we can be sure that Solar activity and volcanic activity are the two main culprits when temperatures vary from the norm. Look up "Maunder Minimum" for instance. When the Sun is inactive, the temperatures drop and we have, for instance, the Little Ice age as an example of what happens. The Maunder Minimum in the second half of the 19th Century inspired ice-skating on the Thames and songs like "Over the River and Through the Wood" that described Thanksgiving Day as a time when snow covered the ground...because at the time snowcover was common in late November because the winters were long and the summers shorter.

Volcanoes and the Sun. Those are the major influences on climate. Mankind? Nope.

radar said...

It is rather amusing when a climate alarmist is presented with evidence that the climate has been COOLING since 1979 that he suggests it could be a "false signal." Right, so sit on a railroad track. If you hear a train whistle, do you get off or do you just think to yourself, it might be a "false signal?" I think you get off that track NOW.

The evidence train is coming and you can hear the whistle. Why not get off the track and be part of the answer (use our fossil fuels and get the economy going) rather than the problem (try to stop fossil fuel usage and further kill the economy, thus bringing more misery to the American people).

radar said...

Now we get to the greenhouse effect. Since the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is tiny, it cannot produce such an effect. We can pour CO2 into the atmosphere as fast as we can and plants will eat it up and grow faster. There is NO evidence to back up a claim that pouring CO2 into the atmosphere produces warming.

Since I previously pointed out that warming would be beneficial to mankind, it is too bad that warming cannot be produced by mankind because it would be helpful.

My drones post and the article that had the information was removed from the internet in the strangest of ways:

"In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at ChillingEffects.org."

But the link provided was boilerplate and did not reveal why it was removed.

Mayor Dave Bing had the documentary, The Wild Dogs of Detroit" removed from the internet. Not sure who removed my drones post. You tell me.

Ted S. said...

"It is rather amusing when a climate alarmist is presented with evidence that the climate has been COOLING since 1979 that he suggests it could be a "false signal." "

When and where did this happen? You see, Mr. Radar, this is why you are not a trustworthy ambassador of your causes. You very quickly veer to dishonest tactics and misrepresentation. You even lie about what people are saying or just said while they're still in the discussion. Perhaps you are so blinded by your own bias and/or have such a high opinion of your own genius and hold other people in such contempt that you don't even try to understand what they are saying - thus the shockingly poor standard of reading comprehension that I've seen you display a few times already. Well maybe you should consider that this doesn't make you look like the rocket scientist you think you are.

The potential "false signal" I was referring to was clearly in regard to the 5- to 10-year charts. In the last comment above, it was about the most recent 10-year-cooling period, which was the same period as you included in the charts in your blog post. As you can see in the chart I've linked to a few times already, there have been a few times (5 or 6 since the 1970s) where such short-term trends were indeed false signals. The same could be the case here.

Okay, now where is this suposed "evidence that the climate has been COOLING since 1979"? Or did you just misread that quote in your previous comment? I'm guessing that's where your mistake lies.

What was the other thing? Oh yeah, I asked you for a graph or study or dataset that actually shows that the "overall temperature is cooling". You don't have one, right? Your claim that the "overall temperature is cooling" was made up, right?

"Since the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is tiny, it cannot produce such an effect."

That sounds curiously unscientific. A tiny percentage of alcohol in your bloodstream can have you smash your pickup truck into a whorehouse, but I suppose we could argue that because it's such a tiny percentage, it couldn't possibly produce such an effect. Yuh-uh.

Ted S. said...

"My drones post and the article that had the information was removed from the internet in the strangest of ways: "

The post you just put up? This one?. It's still there.

radar said...

http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2013/09/a-careful-and-fair-overview-of-so.html

Presents a great deal of something you seem to lack, Ted. Evidence. You have taken the typical troll path:

1)Claim that I have not posted evidence that I have been careful to present.

2)Point to some source that does not shed light on the situation.

3)Not make a coherent argument in your comment.

4)Accuse me of lying.

Now, do you really think I do not know that you trolls have pages where you amp each other up at your incredible wit and wisdom and the only reason you do not break your arm is that others are there to pat you on the back. But the content of your comments remains empty.

I just made a post that actually leans towards the alarmist side just to be fair...http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2013/09/a-careful-and-fair-overview-of-so.html

Now, as to my drone post? Do you think I remember the title of one blog post when I have published about 1,450 blogposts?! No warning was given to me about removing one of my posts and I was given no chance to archive it.

radar said...

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/claim_2010_tied_with_warmest_year_ever_lacks_historical_perspective/

Arctic ice up 60% from 2012:http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog

"A chilly Arctic summer has left nearly a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year, an increase of 60 per cent.

The rebound from 2012’s record low comes six years after the BBC reported that global warming would leave the Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013. Instead, days before the annual autumn re-freeze is due to begin, an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia’s northern shores."


Habeib Khan said...

Lols Gag is the the Best Lol Network Ever, where you can every thing is lol and Funny, Troll Images, Funny Vidoes, Prank Peoples, Funny Peoples, Prank Images, Fail Pictures, Epic Pictures, Epic Videos, Prank Videos, Fail Videos and Much More Fun and Entertainment, Lols and Gags, Lol Pictures, Lol Videos, Funny Pictures, Lol is the Laugh out of Laugh where you can Fun Unlimited and Laughing Unlimited.
lolsgag.com