http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/04/th...-9-months/

So does this belong in the history forum?

Quote:According to the RSS satellite data, whose value for May 2014 has just been published, the global warming trend in the 17 years 9 years since September 1996 is zero (Fig. 1). The 213 months without global warming represent more than half the 425-month satellite data record since January 1979. No one now in high school has lived through global warming.

The long Pause may well come to an end by this winter. An el Niño event has begun. The usual suspects have said it will be a record-breaker, but, as yet, there is too little information to say how much temporary warming it will cause. The temperature spikes caused by the el Niños of 1998, 2007, and 2010 are clearly visible in Figs. 1-3.

El Niños occur about every three or four years, though no one is entirely sure what triggers them. They cause a temporary spike in temperature, often followed by a sharp drop during the la Niña phase, as can be seen in 1999, 2008, and 2011-2012, where there was a “double-dip” la Niña.

The ratio of el Niños to la Niñas tends to fall during the 30-year negative or cooling phases of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the latest of which began in late 2001. So, though the Pause may pause for a few months at the turn of the year, it may well resume late in 2015.

Either way, it is ever clearer that global warming has not been happening at anything like the rate predicted by the climate models, and is not at all likely to occur even at the much-reduced rate now predicted. There could be as little as 1 Cº global warming this century, not the 3-4 Cº predicted by the IPCC.

So they're still assuming it will warm up by at least 1 deg Celsius this century?

(06-04-2014 01:52 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  So they're still assuming it will warm up by at least 1 deg Celsius this century?

What horror that would cause.

I better go get some ice! Seriously, it'll get to 109 degrees today. LOL

Pretty sure using names like el Nino and la Nina is racist.

(06-04-2014 01:59 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  Pretty sure using names like el Nino and la Nina is racist.

only to the gay indians

I thought the settled science alarmists said we'd be burned alive by now.

(06-04-2014 02:11 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  I thought the settled science alarmists said we'd be burned alive by now.

Yea, one of these scientists, I think his name was Danson, Ted, is really, really pissed. We were all supposed to fry or drown or something else, I can't keep all the badness straight, by 2010 or so.

(06-04-2014 02:03 PM)bevotex Wrote:  

(06-04-2014 01:59 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  Pretty sure using names like el Nino and la Nina is racist.

only to the gay indians

Wat?

Grab the tinfoil:

Quote:New attempts to explain away the severe and growing discrepancy between prediction and reality emerge almost every day. Far too few of the scientists behind the climate scare have yet been willing to admit the obvious explanation – that the models have been programmed to predict far more warming than is now likely.

Quote:John Christy and Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama published a series of papers starting about 1990 that implied the troposphere was warming at a much slower rate than the surface temperature record and climate models indicated Spencer and Christy (1992). One early version of their data even showed a cooling trend (Christy et al. 1995).

Several groups of scientists began looking closely at this discrepancy. With so many other pieces of evidence indicating warming, it seemed unlikely that the troposphere would not be warming. Errors were discovered in the methods the UAH group used to adjust the data.

To understand what was wrong: The satellites must pass over the same spot on Earth at the same time each day to get a temperature average. In reality the time the satellite passes drifts slightly as the orbit slowly decays. To compensate for this and other orbital changes a series of adjustments must be applied to the data.

The MSU satellite data is collected from a number of satellites orbiting & providing daily coverage of some 80% of the Earth's surface. Each day the orbits shift and 100% coverage is achieved every 3-4 days. The microwave sensors on the satellites do not directly measure temperature, but rather radiation given off by oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere. The intensity of this radiation is directly proportional to the temperature of the air and is therefore used to estimate global temperatures.
There are also differences between the sensors that were onboard each satellite and merging this data to one continuous record is not easily done. It was nearly 13 years after the orginal papers that the adjustments that Christy and Spencer originally applied were found to be incorrect. Mears et al. (2003) and Mears et al. (2005).

When the correct adjustments to the data were applied the data matched much more closely the trends expected by climate models. It was also more consistent with the historical record of troposphere temperatures obtained from weather balloons. As better methods to adjust for biases in instruments and orbital changes have been developed, the differences between the surface temperature record and the troposphere have steadily decreased.

At least two other groups keep track of the tropospheric temperature using satellites and they all now show warming in the troposphere that is consistent with the surface temperature record. Furthermore data also shows now that the stratosphere is cooling as predicted by the physics.

Satellite measurements of warming in the troposphere

And this one is just for you lil torchy

Quote:The problem with this argument is that it is false: global warming has not stopped and those who repeat this claim over and over are either lying, ignorant, or exhibiting a blatant disregard for the truth.

"Global Warming Has Stopped"? How to Fool People Using "Cherry-Picked" Climate Data

(06-04-2014 01:54 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(06-04-2014 01:52 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  So they're still assuming it will warm up by at least 1 deg Celsius this century?

What horror that would cause.

Okay, but they said "as little as 1 degree". What does that mean? What is the maximum we're likely to see? 3 degrees? If that happens that's still 5 degrees Fahrenheit. That's pretty significant in 100 years.

Just saying - that caught my eye when reading it - my other question is, what are they attributing the expected 1 degree warming to?

(06-04-2014 03:14 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And this one is just for you lil torchy

Quote:The problem with this argument is that it is false: global warming has not stopped and those who repeat this claim over and over are either lying, ignorant, or exhibiting a blatant disregard for the truth.

"Global Warming Has Stopped"? How to Fool People Using "Cherry-Picked" Climate Data

Yeah timmy, give me quotes from a known fraud

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arch...es/253395/

that is certainly your style.

Why are you even on this thread? You're known to be stupid. Certainly physics and chemistry are well beyond you.

(06-04-2014 03:26 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(06-04-2014 03:14 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And this one is just for you lil torchy

Quote:The problem with this argument is that it is false: global warming has not stopped and those who repeat this claim over and over are either lying, ignorant, or exhibiting a blatant disregard for the truth.

"Global Warming Has Stopped"? How to Fool People Using "Cherry-Picked" Climate Data

Yeah timmy, give me quotes from a known fraud

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arch...es/253395/

that is certainly your style.

Why are you even on this thread? You're known to be stupid. Certainly physics and chemistry are well beyond you.

Poor torchy...he really gets bent out of shape when someone shows him to likely be a fraud.

And what's with the Timmy stuff? Just more deflection and name calling when your bull**** is challenged with facts?

But thanks for debunking anything the folks said in the articles I posted...oh wait...you didn't. You just shot the messenger. At least you think you did.

Poor torchy.

But you're right. I'm by no means a physicist or chemist. Of course I willingly admit that, instead of pretending to be one. :smooch:

(06-04-2014 04:09 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  But you're right. I'm by no means a physicist or chemist.

Exactly.

(06-04-2014 04:12 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(06-04-2014 04:09 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  But you're right. I'm by no means a physicist or chemist.

Exactly.

And yet somehow it took me a matter of minutes to find out you're full of **** on this?

Do you ever wonder why hardly anyone comments on your daily GW threads?

And why even fewer folks on here pat you on the pack, stroke your ego, and tell you how right you are?

Poor torchy.

(06-04-2014 02:48 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(06-04-2014 02:03 PM)bevotex Wrote:  

(06-04-2014 01:59 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  Pretty sure using names like el Nino and la Nina is racist.

only to the gay indians

Wat?

Inside joke



Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(06-04-2014 04:21 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-04-2014 04:12 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(06-04-2014 04:09 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  But you're right. I'm by no means a physicist or chemist.

Exactly.

And yet somehow it took me a matter of minutes to find out you're full of **** on this?

Except you were wrong. Again.

Quote:And why even fewer folks on here pat you on the pack, stroke your ego, and tell you how right you are?

Because unlike you, that's not why I post here.

(06-05-2014 06:22 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(06-04-2014 04:21 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-04-2014 04:12 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(06-04-2014 04:09 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  But you're right. I'm by no means a physicist or chemist.

Exactly.

And yet somehow it took me a matter of minutes to find out you're full of **** on this?

Except you were wrong. Again.

Quote:And why even fewer folks on here pat you on the pack, stroke your ego, and tell you how right you are?

Because unlike you, that's not why I post here.

Damn. You two get a room


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App