“SINCE 1979, NOAA satellites have been carrying instruments which measure the natural microwave thermal emissions from oxygen in the atmosphere. The signals that these microwave radiometers measure at different microwave frequencies are directly proportional to the temperature of different, deep layers of the atmosphere.
“Every month, John Christy and I update global temperature datasets that represent the piecing together of the temperature data from a total of eleven instruments flying on eleven different satellites over the years. As of 2008, our most stable instrument for this monitoring is the Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit (AMSU-A) flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite.
“The graph above represents the latest update; updates are usually made within the first week of every month.”
Roy Spencer
July 3, 2009
************************
Notes and Links
Commentary from
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
Chart from
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/uah_jun09.png
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day?
Thou art more lovely and more temperate:
Yes Chistopher, we should be counting our blessings and making hay, not setting fire to the crops like we are proposing.
Some people are still going with this Gistemp and Hadcrut rigups. We know they cannot be right because they tell a different story from the satellite data. But balloon data confirms the satellite data. Hence it is harmful to give any credence to these other rigups and one has to be careful not to let the pictures that people draw, using these failed statistical amalgamations, influence oneself. It does not matter that all three of these outfits disagree with the satellite. It makes no difference. The satellite data is proven, the ground data of the big three is dirty. So the ground data cannot ………. MUST NOT ………….. be allowed to influence any serious person.
It may seem like a prosaic point but not everybody realises this.
look at the ups and downs, all over that graph.
does the current one look special to you?
do you ned some new glasses?
“look at the ups and downs, all over that graph.”
Take your own advice sod, and if that graph went back a few hundred years, it would be even more obvious, that the temperature indeed goes up and down.
Without our help may I add!
But wait.. a best fit of those data looks like it would be….. flat. Over 30 years!
OMG, no – um, well.. it’s the oceans that are important, or dissolved CO2 or something, no wait – it’s the glaciers!
WHAT ABOUT THE FUTURE GENERATIONS – IS IT WORTH THE RISK???!
/sarc
Of course, if the El chichon and Mt Pinatubo effects were excluded from this data then the long term mean would be in the order of 0.1C higher and the current reading would be in the order of 0.1C BELOW that mean. Desperately seeking warming, indeed.
Yep, a 15.27% (51ppm) increase in CO2 since 1979 and absolutely jack $hit warming to show for it. Thats 268 gigatonnes of CO2 all dressed up with nowhere to go.
No wonder the “Bimbo for Climate Change” has ducked for cover.
“look at the ups and downs, all over that graph.
does the current one look special to you?
do you ned some new glasses?”
No but you do if you think that the satellite data doesn’t falsify the rigups from Goddard and the Hadley centre. Their aggregations paint an entirely different picture.
No they don’t Bird – you’re a stupid git who’s never even looked at the data nor contemplated the obvious data set differences. Try not be a total arts student parrot.
In any case – all this is simply tedious wiggle watching dross. Lordy it’s not even the lowest point in the series. The definitive paper has been written. The global warming background is totally unambiguous and is NOT volcanoes, the PDO, or solar. The real world and the models both exhibit periods of slight cooling or statis among a general trend of overall warming.
Get over it and stop being desperate denialists.
Decadal to multidecadal variability and the climate change background
Parker, D., C. Folland, A. Scaife, J. Knight, A. Colman, P. Baines, and B. Dong (2007), Decadal to multidecadal variability and the climate change background, J. Geophys. Res., 112, D18115, doi:10.1029/2007JD008411.
Three prominent quasi-global patterns of variability and change are observed using the Met Office’s sea surface temperature (SST) analysis and almost independent night marine air temperature analysis. The first is a global warming signal that is very highly correlated with global mean SST. The second is a decadal to multidecadal fluctuation with some geographical similarity to the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO). It is associated with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), and its Pacific-wide manifestation has been termed the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO). We present model investigations of the relationship between the IPO and ENSO. The third mode is an interhemispheric variation on multidecadal timescales which, in view of climate model experiments, is likely to be at least partly due to natural variations in the thermohaline circulation. Observed climatic impacts of this mode also appear in model simulations. Smaller-scale, regional atmospheric phenomena also affect climate on decadal to interdecadal timescales
Write the rebuttal and get it published or STF !
SOD,
play close attention to the vertical axis of the graph – it is scalled in decimal points of a degree Celsius – the overall variation is +/- 0.6 degrees Celsius. It is a purposefully exaggeration of the vertical scale but if you plot it as degrees Celsius your ups and downs become quite irrelevant.
It’s called making a mountain out of a molehill using the art of chartsmanship.
Heavens, so much ado over trivial fluctuations of a temperature statistic. One almost gets the impression that this mathematical manipulation is done purposively to exaggerate the point, especially when the point is actually not there.
Luke
have you ever had anything published in a peer reviewed journal? Just wondering since you cite everyone else except yourself.
Well I know you’re unaccustomed to science process – but it is normally customary to quote the best work available on a subject to bolster one’s argument.
“No they don’t Bird – you’re a stupid git who’s never even looked at the data nor contemplated the obvious data set differences. Try not be a total arts student parrot.”
OK we are going to have to go over this again for the very stupid. The Government Department Calling itself “Luke” is lying. And on your time. The Gisstemp graphs for example have a rising trend in them that puts 2005 at about the same temperature if not higher than 1998. This is different from the graph you see above. And it must be disregarded. The ground data is bad data. If it was any good it would show the same trend as the satellite data.
I can see that warning people about these graphs is actually a matter of some urgency. Here I speak to people who have not been awash in this controversy all that long:
Supposing you see a graph of longer term temperature then the above. How do you know whether its dirty or not? Well for starters, if the graph is representing the 90’s as being warmer than the 30’s then the graph is probably outdated or worse. It has to be considered Tapu until such time as matters are clarified. You have to be pretty disciplined about this. Some correction work has been done on the data for the continental United States. And its been established that the 30’s for that region was warmer than the 90’s. More than likely this is the general case for the planet entire. But all the old uncorrected graphs are in force all over the net. Every one of them that has the 90’s warmer than the 30’s ought to be considered dirty, whether it purports to be regional or global. Its got to be thought to be guilty until proven otherwise.
Matter of fact I’ve not seen a global graph that shows the 30’s warmer than the 90’s. But there is no reason to believe that similar quality control applied to global temperature as was finally applied to United States temperature would not lead to similar results.
Just because some taxeater is painting you a picture does not make it real.
“Decadal to multidecadal variability and the climate change background”
Luke,
This what you mean?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/08/the-medieval-warm-period-linked-to-the-success-of-machu-picchu-inca/
You know, after reading the collective genius of ‘Luke’, I guess the science really is settled.
AGW is a failed idea, dependent on arogant bureaucrats pretending to be bright.
The collection of fools hiding out as ‘Luke’ think they can keep selling an alarming trend off of a sparrow fart’s of insignificant change?
Typical lazy bureaucrat sponges.
Do these collective twits think that people are going to continue to buy the same stale bread that anything going up is a crisis, and anything down is weather? And, by the way, if you can’t see it, it is not because it is not there, it is because you are too unenlightened to see the great crisis, the planetary fever, the 10 year window that is almost six years old.
‘Luke’, a committee of self declared geniuses, is the perfect example that intelligence is adversely impacted by self selected committees.
It is time to end the debate. AGW is bunk.
It is time for the apocalypse junkies and over employed bureaucrats to find some other insignificant, poorly known phenomenon to caonfabulate into the next worldwide crisis.
Now come you blokes give Luke a break.
Its the end of the FY and as Treasurer of the Monash University Fantasy Group ( loud guffaws heard) he has a tax return to do–so clearly he is not concentrating and peddling any old shit– more so than previously.
In the meantime Flam Flam Flannery is also causing him greif with his mates ( all one of them), because the Flim Flammer is calling for everyone to turn off their beer fridges.
Dont worry Luke, we are OK the Papal Bull from Flannery doesnt apply to wine fridges.
Sheesh— the double standards of these people.
Frequent visitor – first time contributor.
Luke, Luke, Luke!
No one is arguing temperatures are going up and down over the last 30 years (as per the graph above) whilst CO2 rises almost steadily.
But if CO2 is constantly rising how can this possibly be linked to the variable temperature record?
And I’ve also discovered your heroes over at RealClimate aren’t the objective lot that so many alarmists claim them to be.
Here’s some good reading for you…
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/07/truth-about-realclimateorg.html
As I say at Andrew Bolt’s blog; Climate Change – Natural Climate Change
Just so you all have a clear understanding of this … temperature goes up, temperature goes down.
Temperature goes up is climate change.
Temperature goes down is “just weather”.
Temperature goes up is caused by MAN emitting CO2 (and nothing else according to the peerreviewedscienceissettledbyconsensus)
Temperature goes down is “just weather” masking the effects of the REAL increase in temperatures caused by MAN and all that trapped heat is just hiding away in the deep oceans apparently where it lies undetected like some wraith of old waiting to emerge one balmy night to snatch away the future of our unborn children’s unborn children.
Now to fix this problem we need to give money NOW to those more caring and knowledgable among us to trade and barter like just they did with all that other money they had but more recently cannot account for because any one who can make that much money vanish can surely make that nasty CO2 and all that mysteriously hidden heat dissappear just as surely.
This is all now irrelevant, because we have been told by Wong and co that atmospheric temperature “doesn’t matter”
Spanglo,
Thanks for the Inca reference – I enjoyed that one. History is, of course, an astringent reality check on the wilder speculations of ‘climate science’. Gilbert White, in his well known ‘Natural History & Antiquities of Selborne’, made some comments on the weather. He said ‘The summer of the year 1783 was an amazing and portentous one, and full of horrible phenomena; for besides the alarming meteors and tremendous thunder-storms that affrighted and distressed the different counties of this kingdom, the peculiar haze, or smoky fog, that prevailed for many weeks in this island, and in every part of Europe, and even beyond its limits, was a most extraordinary appearance, unlike anything known within the memory of man… All the time the heat was so intense that butchers’ meat could hardly be eaten on the day after it was killed; and the flies swarmed so in the lanes and hedges that they rendered the horses half frantic, and riding irksome. The country people began to look with a superstitious awe at the red, louring aspect of the sun; and indeed there was reason for the most enlightened person to be apprehensive; for, all the while, Calabria and part of the isle of Sicily, were torn and convulsed with earthquakes; and about that juncture a volcano sprung out of the sea on the coast of Norway.’
Arrharrharr! Imagine what a journalist or politician could do with that today.
Luke
Your reply demonstrates you know nothing about science – science is not done by argument.
Greame – here are the two graphs you refer to rescaled so the vertical and horizontal axes are the same.
You are correct – the nasa-giss is different to the satellite.
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/temps_1.jpg
“Your reply demonstrates you know nothing about science – science is not done by argument.”
No, it is done by astrologers, isn’t it Louis?
Lazlo: “This is all now irrelevant, because we have been told by Wong and co that atmospheric temperature “doesn’t matter”
So the basic hypothesis of increasing atmospheric CO2 by human emissions causing global warming has been jettisoned, and it’s now replaced by “climate change” which is an unfalsifiable hypothesis in any case.
What science!
“No, it is done by astrologers”
They probably would do better than your lot, if not, at least it would cost less!
SJT,
As you are a self confessed scientific illiterate, your belief it’s done by astrologers is hardly surprising.
As Gavin Schmidt admitted recently in an interview
” The problem with climate prediction and projections going out to 2030 and 2050 is that we don’t anticipate that they can be tested in the way you can test a weather forecast. It takes about 20 years to evaluate because there is so much unforced variability in the system which we can’t predict — the chaotic component of the climate system — which is not predictable beyond two weeks, even theoretically. That is something that we can’t really get a handle on.”
That’s called astrology SJT. If you can’t test it, it isn’t a scientific theory.
No Louis. We are all still to blame. It’s just that all the heat is hiding in the oceans, but it will come back to fry us “real soon”. But I agree that, like “it’s all worse than we expected”, these are all unfalsifiable truths.
“there is so much unforced variability in the system which we can’t predict — the chaotic component of the climate system — which is not predictable beyond two weeks, even theoretically”
The chaotic component is not necessarily “unforced”. The term “forcing” is confusing or misleading or verging on meaningless because “forcings” as defined by IPCCers include the effects of internal state variables, and are not required to be external and causally independent driver variables. In the long run the motions of the sun, planets, and moons of the solar system are chaotic, because they are governed, amongst other factors, by Newton’s laws of motion and gravity, which predict long-term deterministic chaos, though it is not apparent in the short term. This includes the motion of the earth’s moon. Of course the internal dynamics of the oceans and atmosphere also have their own deterministic chaos.
re, turning off the bar fridge, does that make “one man with a warm tinnie” ?
Seems to be no comments of rebuttal then.
GB might like to check out http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/offset:-0.146/mean:12/plot/uah/from:1979/mean:12/plot/rss/from:1979/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1979/offset:-0.238/mean:12
How is one’s appreciation of trends altered? It isn’t.
GISS has estimate for Arctic temperatures. So one would expect some differences but the overall trend is the same. Same wiggles.
The end !
“there is so much unforced variability in the system which we can’t predict — the chaotic component of the climate system — which is not predictable beyond two weeks, even theoretically”
In actual fact, if your arse is on the line with the weather, two days is the limit.
There is some satisfaction in hearing Schmidt finally admitting that he [and his models] don’t know it all.
Even though it sounds like an exercise in bum covering.
No no no temperature goes up and down with our CO2 emissions. Look how closely it correlates http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/to:2010 I know there will screams from the chattering classes but we never said it was, so why control (reduce) it?
Luke I am really impressed with your comparison of yearly data with monthly data. Extremely intelligent of you! What is your next effort I know valencia oranges are going up in price so there. Gee I’m convinced I will go and burn a SUV right now. Here is our future we had better as individuals take heed http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/07/08/californias-budget-drama-intensifies/ California the green zealot state where are all those green jobs?
Statistically stupid DFO – you need to compare CO2 with EOF1. You really are a dumb bum aren’t you. You’ve been told you have a system with at least 3 major modes of variation and you pull a stunt like that. Pullease ! The fact that you didn’t even understand what I just told you makes you even thicker.
Next time tell us what fruit salad made of of 5 different fruit is doing. Now off to beddy byes you go. Slowly does it.
Another set of graphs you have to discount utterly is anything which implies the twentieth century was warmer then the medieval warm period. This particular set of lies does not precede the global warming racket.
Over at wiki some fellow plots ten separate studies each with the medieval warm period cooler. There is a fake-up of objectivity rather than the objectivity itself.
I don’t think Penny Wong even used one graph that wasn’t essentially fraudulent. One wants to look more closely at her sea data fake-ups of course.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
Showing great objectivity (not) the author includes no less than 3 fake-ups involving Michael Mann in this collection.
Graeme,
The holocene graph seems to show the MWP slightly warmer than the present.
Don’t tell WIKI.
“Here is our future we had better as individuals take heed http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/07/08/californias-budget-drama-intensifies/ California the green zealot state where are all those green jobs?”
That’s what you get for electing an economic ignoramus. The US economy is losing 500,000 jobs a month with no end in sight, and Arny wants to balance the budget. The deficit is quite acceptable for an economy the size of California’s, if it is for a short time during a recession that could quite easily become a depression. Balancing the budget is only going to make things worth. And it’s got nothing to do with going green, it’s all about a ‘free market’ gone crazy.
Right. You have all these proxy studies from around the world. And of course they only tell you about a specific geographical area. Most of them also are only single-proxy studies. Even to establish the story in the one area you would need three or more proxies. Also some areas work counter to trend. For example while a warmer world also means a wetter world in any time period of perhaps (lets say) three or more decades this is not necessarily the case all over. It seems the West Coast of continents in some areas can be particularly perverse. So I think I read once that the MWP was a time of drought for the American West.
So right there having single proxy studies would seem to not tell you that much. But on the other hand if you have hundreds of them, all over the world, and you try and amalgamate them to get a better picture that might be pretty helpful:
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/quantitative.php
The preponderance of the evidence here appears to confirm exactly what we thought we knew before the global warming fraud.
The MWP was warmer. Elsewhere we see that the Holocene optimum was warmer still. And we have evidence that time periods in prior interglacials were warmer again. If the theory is that there is a tipping point we could reach soon, where the extra warmth will cause water vapour feedback, leading to dangerous warming…. How can that be? Why didn’t it happen before?
So they are just liars. They lie all the time. We have to get on with our synthetic diesel, oil exploration and nuclear power plant commissioning.
play close attention to the vertical axis of the graph – it is scalled in decimal points of a degree Celsius – the overall variation is +/- 0.6 degrees Celsius. It is a purposefully exaggeration of the vertical scale but if you plot it as degrees Celsius your ups and downs become quite irrelevant.
It’s called making a mountain out of a molehill using the art of chartsmanship.
no. it is a look at the anomaly. when looking at a change, you will always look at the anomaly. try reading some scientific stuff, once in a while.
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/quantitative.php
CO2 science is a completely unscientific source. CO2 science does neither provide a link to the articles, nor the original abstract. instead, they do their own summary, which is most often in contradiction to what the article really says. they then combine those false informations into rubbish statistics and graphics like this one. just a fake.
The MWP was warmer.
the MWP was NOT globally warmer than current temperature is. even Loehle s revised paper had to admit this.
Loehle did correct his paper; the correction still shows GMST slightly higher during the MWP than today; unlike Mann’s hockey-stick Loehle used globally diverse temperature data in a non-obfuscatory way to indicate both the MWP and LIA which are absent from the hockey-stick;
http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3025
Loehle plainly shows that the basis of AGW, namely a non-variant temperature history as depicted in the hockey-stick, is incorrect and that quite large fluctuations in GMST occur naturally so as to disprove the AGW contention that both the temperature levels and the rate of temperature movement during the 20thC are exceptional.
Loehle did correct his paper; the correction still shows GMST slightly higher during the MWP than today;
Loehle made an analysis, that ends in 1935.
The peak value of the MWP is 0.526 Deg C above the mean over the period (again
as a 29 year mean, not annual, value). This is 0.412 Deg C above the last reported
value at 1935 (which includes data through 1949) of 0.114 Deg C. The standard error
A 2000-Year Global Temperature Reconstruction Based on Non-Tree Ring Proxies 97
Figure 2. Corrected reconstruction with 95% confidence intervals.
Data for this graph is online at
of the difference is 0.224 Deg C, so that the difference is significantly non-zero at the
10% level (t = 1.84). While instrumental data are not strictly comparable, the rise in
29 year-smoothed global data from NASA GISS (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp)
from 1935 to 1992 (with data from 1978 to 2006) is 0.34 Deg C. Even adding this rise
to the 1935 reconstructed value, the MWP peak remains 0.07 Deg C above the end of
the 20th Century values, though the difference is not significant.
0.07°C! even if we follow the absurd Loehle method, of applying a 30 year smooth to modern data (and including temperature of 1978, basically erasing the modern warming..). and that is in addition to accepting the proxies he picked and the ones he left out…
as it is warmer now, the Loehle paper actually does NOT show the MWP to be warmer than NOW.
Public: CO2 seems to have little correlation to temperature.
Luke: My answer to other sides question about correlation between CO2 and temperature is to state “You really are a dumb bum aren’t you” that is why we argue CO2 should be controlled. Just because we have focussed almost exclusively on CO2 does not mean we can’t sidestep this stating there are many other factors and not give them.
Public: You compared yearly averages to monthly ones.
Luke: I will ignore that and hope insults get me through.
Public: You didn’t answer?
Luke: Look I will say “You’ve been told you have a system with at least 3 major modes of variation and you pull a stunt like that. Pullease !” Then I will waffle on about EOF1 and hope no one picks up that it is almost totally irrelevant.
Public: Using empirical orthogonal functions does not change the fact that for the last 30 years the empirical CO2 data does not correlate with the empirical temperature.
Luke: Look I’m perfect go away.
You don’t get away with this you know. If you are so totally delusional to think you do then think again. What it does is to lower your credibility further and further. Your frustration shows as does your lack of success convincing anyone on this blog about anything other than your delusional nature. Go away do something else you are wasting everyones time including your own.
You’re such a hypocrite sod; Mann is the one who selected proxies to suit his purposes; Loehle didn’t; and as for criticising anyone for ‘smoothing’ given the Ramstorf debacle;
http://landshape.org/enm/rahmstorf-2007-discredited/#disqus_thread
Loehle’s figure for the modern temperature increase is spot on since the 20thC GISS record only shows a 0.4C increase.
You’re such a hypocrite sod; Mann is the one who selected proxies to suit his purposes; Loehle didn’t;
loehle is excluding a lot of proxies. the claim that he didn t make a choice is simply false.
and as for criticising anyone for ’smoothing’ given the Ramstorf debacle;
http://landshape.org/enm/rahmstorf-2007-discredited/#disqus_thread
well, what Ramsdorf did, has nothing to do, with what Loehle did. he is removing the majority of the modern warming period. 1978 is NOT considered to be “now”!
talking about the Ramsdorf article, your problem is a serious lack of understanding of statistics.
Loehle’s figure for the modern temperature increase is spot on since the 20thC GISS record only shows a 0.4C increase.
the facts are contradicting your claim. here is the GISS record of the time period under discussion (1920-“today”)
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1920/plot/gistemp/from:1935/to:1993/trend
the trend line marks the part that Loehle is adding to the end point of his data. if you think that the endpoint of that line is representative of temperatures “now”, you are seriously misguided.
DHMO – well you’re still a dumbo aren’t you. I have to say it again – you have a very good story of CO2 correlated with temperature long term, overlaid with some decadal fluctuations.
Otherwise write the rebuttal for Parker et al (2007) – but as per usual for denialist scumbags – that’s not gonna happen is it. Arm waving is easier.
Not specifically a rebuttal to Parker et al luke;
http://landshape.org/enm/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/09071650v2.pdf
Well it seems to this old Bushy from the back of Barellan that Luke and Sods credibility is being slowy squeezed in that vice Luke is always talking about.
Not to mention their entire genetic capabilities.
Pikey.
sod; here is a slightly better conceived graph of temperature trends over the 20thC;
http://landshape.org/enm/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/article-003.png
Well Pikey maaaattteee – you bailed on the last discussion declaring yourself the winner. A legend in your own mind?
Cohers – would you trust those authors 🙂 – they look a bit shifty to me.
Mate – naive stuff. Look this is the way it works. You get out of the secret squirrel stuff – send a copy to Folland and ask for a critique. Are you up for it? If you don’t start bringing some fire down on your own position you’ll never know.
The paper is in review, how about a comment? Anyway, here is my take on it; in Australia there is no discernible AGW effect on temperature trend during the 20thC; the 1978 step up generates the temperature difference; prior to the break-point the temperature is flat because there was a -ve and +ve PDO which in effect nullified each PDO’s effect on temperature; the 1978 step-up is the entirety of the new +ve PDO; this is not a stored or accumulated heat build up but, imo, a product of the oceanographic effects which occurred in 1976; on this basis the contrary oceanographic effect in 1998 should produce a gradual decline in trend from the plateaued trend from 1998.
The global temperature history is more complex; there is a gradual trend from 1910 to 1976 of about 0.3C; the trend after the step-up in 1976 is about 0.2C until the 1997 break; after 1997 the trend declines. For what its worth my take on that is the pre-1976 trend is solar; the trend between 1976 and 1997 cannot be natural variation because the PDO effect is in the break so the problem for CO2, which is monotonically increasing, is, if the CO2 post 1976 caused the trend to 1997, after 1997 with the PDO effect also at 1997 there cannot be a Keenlyside type masking of AGW to explain the flat to slightly declining post 1997 trend because the masking effect stopped at 1997; so there is no amplification of AGW between 1976 and 1997 and no depression of AGW post 1997. My best bet for the 1976 to 1997 trend is UHI with some measurement hiccups thrown in and for post 1997 a declining sun.
“CO2 science is a completely unscientific source. CO2 science does neither provide a link to the articles, nor the original abstract. instead, they do their own summary, which is most often in contradiction to what the article really says. they then combine those false informations into rubbish statistics and graphics like this one. just a fake.
The MWP was warmer.
the MWP was NOT globally warmer than current temperature is. even Loehle s revised paper had to admit this.
You see all of this is a lie without exception.
“CO2 science is a completely unscientific source…….
A filthy lie
” CO2 science does neither provide a link to the articles…………”
Thats ridiculous. Did you get this idiocy from Coby Beck? Not all articles are available online for free so obviously they are not in a position to provide the full study. This is worse than a lie. You are just filth mate.”
“….nor the original abstract……….”
What is cut and pasting to google for you dirty stinking socialist?
“.. instead, they do their own summary….. ”
Thats a good thing. They are great summaries. What is wrong with providing a summary? If they didn’t provide a summary how could you know what the study was about? How can providing a summary be a bad thing you idiot?
“… which is most often in contradiction to what the article really says. …..”
They don’t contradict what the article really sez you are lying. Since the only important thing in the article is the concrete facts. The politically correct wording and the veiled pleas for more funding are just not important. What IS important is the interpretation of the concrete fact revealed in the study, which the rest of us can sometimes access for free and sometimes not.
“….they then combine those false informations.,…..” Another filthy lie on your part…
” ….into rubbish statistics …..”
Another lie on your part there is nothing wrong with their statistics. THEY ARE ENTIRELY TRANSPARENT WITH THEIR DATA AND METHODOLOGY IN ALL CASES. This
is makes them virtually unique is this shameful poxy area.
‘
I’d break your nose if you lied like this to my face. No question about that at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This idiot is lying about the MWP. As the evidence shows the MWP was warmer. He’s got no evidence to the contrary. Nothing that has emerged since the global warming fraud started suggests that the MWP was colder. He’s just lying.
Now everything knows why these people are lying about this. Because a warmer MWP means no tipping point is credible. Means this filth doesn’t have the justification for a cap-and-kill or a global tax or to ration energy in the same way they dealt with the fight against malaria.
CO2 science is the best site on the internet for this sort of information. Since it is so comprehensive and so transparent. For context you come to this site.
Interesting point raised by Lazlo and Louis. If Wong is now claiming that atmospheric temperatures are no longer important then what the f@#& have all these climate cretins been doing with their Global Climate Models for the past two decades?
Luke, Sod & SJT should refrain from any further comment until they explain this inconsistency.
Do the GCMs primarily model atmospheric temperature or don’t they?
Is Minister Wong a moron or not?
Has she directly contradicted the past two decades of IPCC sanctioned modelling or not?
Oh Luuuukkkeeeey?
“If Wong is now claiming that atmospheric temperatures are no longer important then”
Point out to me where they said atmospheric temperatures are no longer important.
Mottsa – what are you on about – Phil has gotten me out of a warm bed with a hot lady to answer Motty in a cold room. Phil all excited as he thinks you may have a point – so I pulled the power on his wheel chair.
Motty – Wongsy is a bit of stylish chick with some smarts – but do you really think any of the govt hierarchy know what’s really going on. They’re pollies for heavens sake and despite what you think I don’t shill for them.
I know you’ll just roll you eyes – but here’s how it goes. Periods of statis are evident in the temperature record since 1850 despite a background trend of up up up.
Why – IPO, AMO, solar, volcanoes, etc
The IPCC report means of models. The individual models are composed of ensembles (numbers of runs with slightly different starting conditions to sample the chaos space).
AND individual models means and individual ensemble members can wander around for periods without growth in temperatures. The monotonically up up up is just not so.
Furthermore Hadley are investing big bucks in understanding decadal influences. (Which is the subject of my ongoing sideline discussion with Coho).
Clearly an increase in long term temperatures in both the atmosphere and oceans IS INDEED what AGW is on about. However – a decade of little action isn’t “abnormal” say the models and the real world.
Folland says:
1. Large scale natural modes of interdecadal variability exist. Likely to have substantial regional effects on climate even remotely.
2. Regional effects of natural modes can produce regional climate trends.
3. Regional climate variations/change must be increasingly understood as a combined consequence of natural variability and anthropogenic forcing.
Which means it will get complex !
We’ll just have to wait to see who get tarred and feathered.
Wongsy is probably on the hooch.
No thats not right Luke. The models were taken totally by surprise as usual.
Ian Mott “Thats 268 gigatonnes of CO2 all dressed up with nowhere to go”.
In an atmosphere with a mass of nearly 5 quadrillion metric tonnes, what’s a gigatonne here or there? A quadrillion is 1000 million million, or 5,000,000,000,000,000 (5e+15). A giga is 1,000,000,000 (1e+9).
ALL CO2 makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere and ACO2 0.04% of ALL CO2, making it 0.0016% of the atmosphere. Some people are impressed by gigatonnes, not having a clue just how incredibly large is the mass of the universe.
Even taking your figures, 268,000,000,000/5,000,000,000,000,000 = 0.0000536 x 100 = 0.0056%. Even though 268 gigatonnes of CO2 sounds like a whole lot, it’s only 0.0056% of the atmosphere. In words, that’s 5.36 one-thousands of 1 percent.
Roy Spencer’s analogy is even better. 380 ppmv means 380 molecules of CO2 per 1 million molecules of air, or 38 molecules of CO2 per 100,000 molecules of air. Since CO2 accumulates at 0.6% per year, that is 0.006 x 38 molecules = 0.228 molecules of CO2 per year. To get an even molecule, we multiply by 5 years, to get about 1 molecule added by humans to 100,000 molecules of air every five years. Many AGWers don’t get it that 98.5% of ALL CO2 is reabsorbed by the oceans and land.
Some blanket that is for trapping IR.
“No thats not right Luke. The models were taken totally by surprise as usual.” – gee Birdy – how long have you been a pig ignorant now. Dazzling rebuttal mate.
Gordon’s back to the teesnsy weensy ruse. Give it away you clown. Hey Gordon do you know hey there are earthquakes.
Mate – Spencer defends the greenhouse effect exists – you dispute its existence – so boofhead – do you agree with Spencer or not? As usual – denialist scum have more positions than the Karma Sutra.
Spencer urinates all over your stupid 2nd Law of Thermodynamics ruse.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/04/in-defense-of-the-greenhouse-effect/
“Roy Spencer’s analogy is even better. 380 ppmv means 380 molecules of CO2 per 1 million molecules of air, or 38 molecules of CO2 per 100,000 molecules of air. Since CO2 accumulates at 0.6% per year, that is 0.006 x 38 molecules = 0.228 molecules of CO2 per year. To get an even molecule, we multiply by 5 years, to get about 1 molecule added by humans to 100,000 molecules of air every five years. Many AGWers don’t get it that 98.5% of ALL CO2 is reabsorbed by the oceans and land.”
You sound like the overweight person justifying their meal to themselves. The simple fact is we are well on the way to doubling the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
No no Luke. There is no use lying about it. All alarmist models have been taken totally by surprise. Lying doesn’t count department of Luke. No model using CO2 as a driving force can work but if it did its nickname would by now be a household word.
SJT – we are well on the way of doubling CO2 in the atmosphere? Given that the human contribution of total CO2 is about 3%, that’s an interesting extrapolation. Must be something to do with the Enid Blyton science the IPCC reports are based on.
Birdy – I would give Louis more credibility than yourself. The ultimate level of denial is thinking one might attract a fair share of results in a national poll. I rest my case as to the demonstrated result of a test of your powers of judgement.
Well the department of Luke is just full of morons isn’t it? Yes it is. Imagine falling for this embarrassing and transparent science fraud. What a stupid stupid department. Should be axed, the building torn down and removed, and salt poured on the ground.
Neat sidestep Luke. Wong says the atmosphere doesn’t count so best tell that to the climate muddlers who obviously think it does. Indeed, the whole theory of CO2 forcing is based on the impact of CO2 in the atmoshpere, isn’t it?
Now if Wong is not wrong, and it is all about the oceans, then we would need to start looking at what changes oceanic albedo in a way that increases retained insolation and raises surface temperatures. Gosh, boy wonder, do you think variations in cloud cover could be raising ocean temperatures independently of all those minor agents like CO2 and methane?
Smells an awful lot like the ground work for a climate bail out to me.
Re: CO2ppm, Gordon.
I agree, CO2 is sweet FA. I only mentioned the volume to remind the climate cretins how much it has increased for no result.
Maybe Penny W got the idea from that wonderful series on Youtube called ‘Climate Denial Crock of the Week’.
Check out ‘Party like it’s 1998’ which says that the story of global warming is really the story of ocean warming (or some such crock).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y15UGhhRd6M
But the good Prof Barry Brook endorses this series so it must be right.