The massive bulk of evidence indicates that nothing is wrong, and that Hansen, Mann and the rest of the hockey team are not being honest with us.
- Temperatures are below Hansen’s zero emissions after 2000 Scenario C
- Global temperatures are declining this century
- Sea level has been declining for several years, and is lower now than it was in 2003
- Arctic ice extent and area is the highest for the date since 2005
- Temperatures in western Greenland last year were the coldest since 1996
- Temperatures in Antarctica have been declining for 30 years
- Antarctic ice has been increasing for 30 years
- Winter snow extent is increasing, and has been near record highs in recent years
- Temperatures in Texas show no increase since 1895
- Drought in Australia is at historic lows
- Drought in the US is well below the mean
- Severe tornadoes are on the decline in the US
- US hurricane strikes are on the decline
- Intense hurricanes are on the decline
- Polar Bear populations have tripled
- Yellowstone Grizzly Bear populations have tripled
- USHCN raw thermometer data shows that the US has been cooling since 1895
- The ten deadliest floods in history all occurred with CO2 below 350 ppm
- The deadliest US hurricane, the most powerful US hurricane, and the deadliest US tornado all occurred with CO2 below 350 ppm
Let’s put this scam to bed in 2012. It has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with money and politics.
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/s_plot_hires.png
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_seasonal.php?ui_set=nhland&ui_season=1
http://climvis.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/cag3/hr-display3.pl
http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/tornado/tornadotrend.jpg
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/ushurrlist18512009.txt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Carla
Fig. 13. Geographic distribution of linear trends in HCN version 2 temperatures for the period 1895–2007. (b) unadjusted maximum temperatures
global warming 2012, corporations and global warming in the USA 2012
Steve,
All this science makes me feel like pissing in the wind and tell everyone that I was protected from God and never got wet!
You have to believe predictions from James Hansen. His 2011 El Nino really hit hard.
;^)
And we are still suffering from it!
Can someone forward this to HRH Prince Numpty at Highgrove?
Don’t be so hard on Mann et al. Their little faux pas only cost US taxpayers $106.7 billion dollars from 2003-2010 which doesn’t include an additional $79 billion spent on climate change technology research, tax breaks for “green energy, foreign aid to address “climate problems”; another 16.1 billion since 1993 in federal revenue losses due to “green energy” subsidies; or still another $26 billion earmarked for climate change programs and related activities in the 2009 “Stimulus Bill”. – Source – US Government Accounting Office (GAO); compiled by Forbes
Mann has spent $1 million to date in legal fees trying to keep ATI from getting access to his emails even though he supposedly didn’t do anything wrong.
However, as we are frequently reminded by these modern chicken littles, it’s not about the money.
$106.7 billion
$79 billion
$16.1 billion
$26 billion
—————–
$128 billion
I’m sure Obama got a lot of that back as campaign contributions though….
….So it was money well spent
Cherry picking again I see!
Yes, but normal is abnormal. It’s the abnormal that’s normal
Damn that observed evidence!
How about this list is circulated amongst all the top sceptical sites, to get it out there in one giant, coordinated effort? From there a well-coordinated campaign would get real publicity in the msm.
Right across the spectrum it seems observed reality is showing there’s almost nothing abnormal or outside of usual signals, and almost everything is falling within excepted parameters.
Time to put the evidence on the table and humiliate alarmists into submission with simple, observed facts.
When testing Hansen’s predictions against current temperature trends you should use this source
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/_tabledata3/GLB.Ts.txt
His prediction was based on Hansen and Lededeff which used only met station data.
Comparing it to the global land ocean index is comparing apples to oranges.
Comparing it to met station data, the prediction is actually very close.
Thanks for the cherry!
Bob, does the fact that Hansen acknowledges his predictions weren’t correct bother you at all? You Hansen apologists even deny the reality of Hansen’s own statements! Give it up already.
BTW, your link is broke.
GLBTs.txt. Very funny. Somebody been looking at naughty pictures again?
Steve if you want a good laugh look at these Hayhoe slides. Climate Evangelicalism at its finest.
http://www.rep.org/Hayhoe_Climate.pdf
Is it just me, or are most of those slides screwed up, as in not displaying properly?
From the ones I can see properly, there isn’t one that doesn’t have a rebuttal, though most don’t even need one, since everyone knows the world has been warming anyway; it amuses me how alarmists think they need to remind people of that.
Major glaring omission is that of Arctic sea-ice minima. Apparently Hayhoe thinks records stopped in 2007.
In all seriousness (I don’t do “Serious” very often) you are onto something with your:
“Let’s put this scam to bed in 2012″
Maybe we should run a bumper sticker contest. Here’s mine:
“END CO2 SCAM NOW!”
bob droege at 6:10 p.m.
“His prediction was based on Hansen and Lededeff which used only met station data.”
So what you are saying is that Hansen used a limited data set that didn’t represent global temperature anyway, and, therefore, should never have been used as the basis for arguing global temperature would increase with increasing CO2?
I can live with that interpretation.
CheshireRed seems reality shows there’s almost nothing abnormal. says:
January 2, 2012 at 6:01 pm
…
Right across the spectrum it seems observed reality is showing there’s almost nothing abnormal or outside of usual signals, and almost everything is falling within excepted parameters.
Ah, but there’s the problem: the excepted parameters are accepted, and the unexceptional ones aren’t accepted.
or SLT.
/:-p
Mr Goddard
Well it has taken some time to check out all the measures you used in your 2012 Global Warming Report Card. I have done a detailed report of it here;
http://reallysciency.blogspot.com/2012/01/2012-global-warming-report-card.html
But I conclude that it is just a list of cherry picked point, absurd measures, and includes one doctored and less than honest chart.
Knowing your nature I doubt that any of my analysis of your metrics will be accepted. However since you rate honesty so highly I’m sure that you posted the doctored chart from a source you failed to sceptically check rather that one that you doctored for effect yourself. Since you claim that certain scientists haven’t been honest I’m certain that now you have been made aware that the chart has been heavily manipulated you will either remove it or replace it with the one you claim it to be. I just wait and wonder how ling it will take you to correct this.
I see what you are saying. If you are standing at the top of a hill, the only direction is up.
Steven Goddard! You should know better than to look at a few, cherry-picked metrics like temperature, snowfall, drought, violent weather, ocean pH, rainfall, polar ice, animal populations, ocean-level rise, & such. You have to learn to look at The Big Picture™ and see the really important things, like missing, undetectable heat at the bottom of the ocean, and the fact that the tropospheric hot-spot doesn’t exist, or that you actually need exactly 17 years, 8 months and 14 days to tell a global trend (subject to future revision).
15 minutes of research corroborates what Really Sciency and Lazarus have stated: these are nothing but cherry-picked data, pointless, or irrelevant.
Now, you knew this when you put it together – but why? Why do you need to lie or mislead? I realize you never actually engage in meaningful dialogue here – just pithy or asinine comments – but it always interests me to try and understand why people feel the need to lie or mislead during an argument, discussion or debate in order to ‘prove’ their point.
I’ve long held the belief that people like yourself are either stupid, ignorant, evil, or insane. Take the case of temperatures in Nuuk: what does it prove about global warming? Nothing. Nothing at all. I’m sure we could come up with a list of thousands of sites that have seen temperatures increase/decrease over the last hundred years. It still would prove nothing. Global warming has the word ‘global’ in it – not the placename ‘Nuuk’. So why did you post data on a single locale in Greenland as evidence that Mann et al are being dishonest?
The answer is the reverse of your claim – you’re the one being dishonest. Why? I mean, I can’t believe you’re stupid enough to think one locale in Greenland is meaningful in the context of GLOBAL warming. You’re not ignorant of the data that shows the globe is warming. That leaves us with either evil or insane.
Being a non-religious person I can’t take solace in the belief that those who oppose truth will get their just punishment in some eternal hell created by a vengeful god. What I’ve always found surprising is that those who DO BELIEVE (or at least profess to) are usually the ones playing fast and loose with the truth. Look at any of the current US GOP presidential candidates for numerous examples.
This is the dichotomy that has always interested me. those who proclaim to hold truth as a prerequisite for eternal reward are the ones who abandon it whenever expedient. Stupid, ignorant, evil or insane? Nuuk, Greenland: The smoking gun that disproves the entire theory of global warming or just another turd in a Gish Gallop of misinformation? You decide.
Yes, this entire post is about is about Nuuk.
What part of “Take the case of …” don’t you understand?
I never said the entire post was about Nuuk. There’s no need for me to explicate each of your idiocies. One is enough to prove my point. Unless you actually believe that Nuuk is important in the context of global warming; in which case we’ll have to reopen up the possibility you’re either stupid or ignorant.
I did say you would answer with a pithy or asinine comment and avoid meaningful dialogue. Not hard to be Nostradamus around here.
Good point. Greenland is melting down, but Nuuk is getting cooler.
Good point, every locale on the globe/continent/landmass/region must warm or cool at the same time. Otherwise it would be confusing and require deeper analysis.
Holy crap!! Steve where did you pick up this loon?
Kevin, do you not see the hypocrisy and duplicity in your statements? Steve didn’t pick Nuuk as an example of the state of our global climate, the lunatics did. Can you read about climate without a day going by that the lunatics point to a specific location or event and say, “See, that’s climate change!” As far as picking timelines and accusing people of cherry-picking, the lunatics have perfected that technique. That Steve employs their own techniques is goose and gander stuff.
To the specifics, are you accusing Steve of manipulating Norsex? His Envisat numbers present the database in its entirety. Which is better than Colo. university.
Point specifically to what data you believe is in error or misrepresents current trends.
Its people like you who are engaged in misanthropy. Idiot.
So, do you believe that the temperature from a single locale has anything to do with proving Mann et al as dishonest? That’s the supposed point of this article.
You posit a false equivalency. Where have Mann or Hansen ever said that the temperature in a single locale proves or disproves global warming. Never happened. No, this is pure crap. Calling it anything else is dishonest.
It’s also interesting that the temperature dataset for Nuuk goes back to at least 1900. Now, why would Steve post a graph that only goes back to 1920? What’s magical about the year 1920? Come on now – think. Why not include data from the first two decades of the 20th century.
Wait for it …..
Wait for it….
Because if he includes the data going back to 1900 instead of 1920 the trend becomes positive instead of negative. Oh, too easy. I hope you got that one in one guess.
One locale is meaningless in the context of global warming, but he had to cherry-pick years to even get the one locale to agree with him. So, it’s turtles all the way down.
Here’s the full 20th century record for Nuuk.
Kevin,
CO2 barely changed prior to 1920. You are making a very good case that Arctic warming has nothing to do with CO2. Since CO2 started rapidly increasing, temperatures in Nuuk have been going down.
CO2 levels didn’t start rising until AFTER 1920?
I always thought pre-industrial was the demarcation line. I guess cherry-pick squared has now become cherry-pic cubed. Like I said, turtles all the way down.
lol, sort of makes 350.org irrelevant then, doesn’t it.
I see. The tiny rise before 1920 caused warming in Nuuk, but the huge rise since 1920 caused cooling.
You are being completely irrational.
I’m on record as saying the temperature record in Nuuk is irrelevant to GLOBAL warming. I’m trying to figure out why you included it in this article, why you truncated the data at 1920 – even though most people use circa 1850 as the start of human CO2 emissions.
What I see is Nuuk (or any single locale) is irrelevant in the context of global warming.
Nuuk’s temperature, even though irrelevant, have actually increased since 1900.
Global anthropogenic CO2 emissions probably doubled between 1900 and 1920 (note *emissions* not atmospheric CO2 content). Again, not relevant, but contrary to your claims.
Turtles all the way down.
Continue defending the defenseless. I’d be disappointed otherwise.
Kevin, are you intentionally being obtuse? Steve didn’t include Nuuk to show it relevant to global warming.
What temperature does ice melt at?
Kevin, did you not see all the other information Steve provided? That isn’t the thrust of his post. The fact that Mann is dishonest has already been established and Steve doesn’t need to dwell there. (Tiljander) Hansen is known to accept graft for his opinions from a government position. Steve doesn’t have to make the case for either one of their dishonesty, they’ve already done that.
There are 19 bullets in this post. There are 14 separate graphs which reflect entirely different data sets. And 3 different maps……. one graph represents Nuuk. But, Steve’s cherry picking? Did it occur to you that Steve may not have put that temp chart up there to represent the globe and that perhaps it may have been included to address claims about recent melt in the arctic?
Again, I’ll ask, have you seen one day go by in which the lunatic fringe don’t point to one specific location or event and claim proof of climate change? I saw a dead floating polar bear once……..
1900 or 1920, which year is more relevant to current climate conditions?
Any other objections towards the plethora of other data and information he’s offered? Or should we dwell at Nuuk?
Why was Nuuk included? Why was the data truncated at 1920? Now Steve claims CO2 wasn’t rising before 1920. That’s three lies/misinleading info tied to just one of his 19 metrics. Turtles all the way down.
Go read Lazarus or Really Sciency – they take every point apart the same way I’m doing just this ONE.
Mann has been vindicated by multiple investigations. That’s a fact. You don’t like it, so choose not to believe it. Even if true, lying by one side does not justify lying by the other. That’s what you’re claiming. They do it so it’s ok if we do it. Great philosophy.
“Mann has been vindicated by multiple investigations.”
If you really think those investigations were impartial, I have some snake oil I would like to sell you. You cling to your belief in AGW like a drowning sailor in the middle of the ocean clings to a waterlogged piece of his sunken ship.
lmao, vindicated by Penn State? When none of the investigations asked the relevant questions?
But, towards Nuuk, its only relevant to towards the recent claims of accelerated melt. I’m sorry if you guys lack the proper tools to understand the logic. Personally, I wouldn’t have gone back that far, but to each his own.
And, again, I ask you, what else do you have an objection towards.
You see, it doesn’t matter about claims of this or that. The facts are, there has been no statistically significant warming in 15 years. The arctic ice hasn’t diminished since 2007. Sea levels are not rising and Envisat shows no rise in 5 1/2 years. Obviously, ice melt is either over stated or it’s impact is. Our droughts aren’t worse than the past their less severe. NH snow extent is increasing both in the winter and annually. Hurricanes and tornadoes are decreasing in severity. There isn’t any impact from this imaginary crisis on the Antarctic….. whether or not you, Laz, or anyone else likes the way Steve has presented this doesn’t make the facts go away.
@LLAP
If you really think those investigations were partial, I have some snake oil I would like to sell you. You cling to your disbelief in AGW like a drowning sailor in the middle of the ocean clings to a waterlogged piece of his sunken ship.
Jesus, sticks and stones, man. Turtles all the way down. I’m rubber, you’re glue …. any other elementary school taunts come to mind?
Get a grip, or at least make a coherent argument. Probably a bit much to expect given the IQ (or lack thereof) required to produce a comment of such excremental quality.
@Kevin: “Jesus, sticks and stones, man. Turtles all the way down. I’m rubber, you’re glue …. any other elementary school taunts come to mind?
Get a grip, or at least make a coherent argument. Probably a bit much to expect given the IQ (or lack thereof) required to produce a comment of such excremental quality.”
LOL! You warmists are so easy to wind up. Go have a bowel movement … you will feel much better.
Irony.
The hockey stick was removed from AR4, and not because it was found beyond reproach, as some may try and claim.
But don’t take my word for it, take a warmist’s point of view…
Muller is a warmist? What a laugh. Remember, he was going to PROVE Mann et all wrong. Instead he corroborated their findings. Are you not familiar with the BEST results? Muller and BEST duplicated the hockey stick you moron.
My god, are you that dumb? Here’s the Top Comment from your video:
Nice spin!
“Muller is a warmist? What a laugh… Muller and BEST duplicated the hockey stick you moron.”
But I think you got dizzy!
I guess you missed Muller on video saying that Mann et al ‘deceived’ society and scientists.
And why was the hockey stick removed? Could it have something to do with a flat line through the established MWP?
Hmmm?
You took a video from before Muller and BEST went through the data. The statement *I* quoted is from after Muller did his own analysis. Generally we consider more recent statements to supercede earlier ones. At least in the reality-based world. How it works in your fantasy-based world may be different.
Still can’t read?
Why did the IPCC remove the hockey stick from AR4?
And yes, Muller said ‘deceived,’ and he not only meant it, he illustrated it.
Blind too?
Now put the BS shovel down, grab the snow shovel, and help the old woman down the street.
Gator – didn’t Muller and BEST prove Mann’s reconstruction was correct?
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-6.html
Mann and the Hockey Stick are alive and well in AR4.
MBH1998 was the original Hockey Stick and it is not there.
You find one of the retread versions of the Hockey Stick and think you see the real thing.
Most of the graphs in AR4 are retreads of the original using much of the same garbage data.
If the first one was correct there would be no need to defend it as it would defend itself.
2006: “Muller estimates 2 in 3 odds that humans are causing global warming” http://bit.ly/xLEG6v
Yep, sure sounds like a skeptic to me.
Oh, wait, the puffington host calls him a skeptic. Dang, I can’t argue with a pop-culture website. They have all the fats. I mean facts.
Stark:
I believe what they have is properly spelled with an R rather than a “C”.
“Gator – didn’t Muller and BEST prove Mann’s reconstruction was correct?”
No. They proved they are just as capable of bad science as Mann.
The Hockey Stick was removed from AR4? You bought that denier myth, huh.
Here’s a link to the graph of Mann 1999 from AR4
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-6.html
Don’t buy denier myths – do the research yourself.
The Hockey Stick is MBH1998. MBH 1999 is a retread version of the Hockey Stick. You really need to get your head out of your ass Kevin!
LOL – you are a hoot. You really don’t know, do you? You really believe this crap. I must admit, I didn’t think anyone with access to a computer could be *that* stupid.
MBH 1999 *is* MBH 1998 with more years tacked on. The original paper went back to 1400 AD, published in Nature in (even you might guess this right) 1998. MBH 1999 is the original 1998 data extended back to the year 1000. They simply added 400 more years to the reconstruction. This was published GRL in 1999.
MBH 1999 contains all of MBH 1998 plus 400 years additional data. You really are a full-blown loon, aren’t you?
@suyts: so you believe Nuuk is relevant and should be included in a post asserting that everything is ok and Mann et al are dishonest? Even though the temperature record for Nuuk actually shows it to be warming – as opposed to Steve’s graph that shows it cooling.
Relevant to recent claims of accelerated melt? Acccelerated melt of what exactly? Sea ice? Nuuk is on the southern tip of Greenland. Quite far away from the Arctic basin. Glaciers?
As an aside, arctic ice has greatly decreased in volume since 2007, just as land-ice on Greenland is declining.
@ kevin….. you loon! Against my better judgement I went to the real sciency site.
So far, he’s oh-fer-3………
Hansen has admitted his “scenarios” were off. Apologizing for using a model with too high sensitivity doesn’t validate it, it invalidates it.
If you guys want to go with HadCrut since 2000, be my guest. It shows a flat line. In other words, in spite of ever increasing atmospheric CO2, there has been no climate sensitivity to it.
As to the sea level graphic. And this is my favorite, you realize that Colo. U. has conflated 3 entirely separate data sets, right? Only a clueless and vapid person could possibly consider that as legitimate. Go here…. http://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/01/11/the-true-decadal-temp-trend/
I’ll continue with my critique of Laz and the weak response by a spoof site…….
Metric 4……. Laz seems to imply Steve picked 2005. He didn’t. NORSEX did. If Steve were to have done his own graphics, he would then again be accused of cherry picking the data. AMSR-E died earlier this year, so unfortunately, NORSEX is one of the few graphical representations left.
Metric 5 …… Again, the temp record of Nuuk wasn’t inserted to represent the globe or even arctic temp trends, but rather how it relates to Greenland ice melt. What temp does ice melt at? Warming and cooling are relative assertions. For instance, the globe has cooled since 2001, the globe has warmed since 1980, the globe has warmed since the LIA, the globe has cooled since the MWP….. now pick one to make any case ….
Metric 6 …….. Laz’s response doesn’t make any sense, other than to explain why Steve was correct. This, in spite of early IPCC claims that both poles will experience warming. Steve’s graph includes both sides east and west. The peninsula, btw, has recorded warming consistent with UHI effect.
continuing…….
Metric 7……. now that one is a hoot…. Laz whines about Steves presentation of graphs, but he produces one that is 6 1/2 years old. I’m wondering if anything has changed between now and then and how this may correlate with the data Envisat presents? This is about as deft as producing temps up to 1998 to show that this decade’s temps aren’t really decreasing.
Metric 8……… I’d have to say sourcing from SkS is folly because I happen to have the same data and the total NH snow extent is growing on the annual basis. http://suyts.wordpress.com/2011/06/11/too-much-blathering-about-snow-loss/
Metric 9 ……. I can only imagine that the Texas graphic was inserted because the climate loonies and their LSM had Texas dominating the climate news coverage for most of the year. And Steve probably thought it relevant to insert some reality about Texas.
Continuing………
Since Nuuk is relevant, a single locale, and the data shows Nuuk’s temperatures to be rising, over the same timeframe that CO2 has been increasing, haven’t we now come to the point where we’ve proved (by the pretty abysmal standards Steve himself set) AGW is correct?
Isn’t this the opposite of what Steve was trying to assert? It’s just he didn’t give us the whole dataset. Now it makes sense. Nuuk is warming, Arctic sea-ice is decreasing, Greenland’s land-ice is decreasing; all pointing to the Arctic must be warming. All of this in agreement with AGW theory.
Now, *I* don’t buy that ‘proof”. One locale cannot prove or disprove the theory of AGW. There was no reason to include Nuuk in this article. OK, no *good* reason. If we want to mislead people, then we’ll include it. Even then, we have to cherry-pick the data to get it to agree with our point. Then we’ll have to lie about when CO2 emissions started increasing. The only way we could make this worse would have been citing a locale that didn’t actually exist. Turtles all the way down.
If I cited one Greenland station and claimed it PROVED the theory of global warming was real, you’d say ‘ridiculous’ – but when Steve says the exact same thing, but with the opposite conclusion, you back him up and defend him. What should a reasonable person conclude? And if the data I cited was misleading in and of itself? And if I gave a spurious reason for only using partial data?
I need to go shovel snow (now that’s evidence of global warming – first time the shovel has been out and it’s mid-January in Wisconsin). As proof or disproof of global warming, the lack of low temperatures or snow in the upper midwest is far more convincing that the temp data for Nuuk. But I’m not stupid enough to make that claim – actual global temperature datasets are required. Oh, and we have those.
Kevin,
You are completely irrational and live in a world of straw men. Go shovel snow in Texas, which has had their snowiest winter on record.
I guess shoveling BS warmed him up for his ‘snow job’ equivalent.
Are you also of the ‘one temp in Greenland’ camp?
How ’bout the ‘gravity is an illusion’ camp.
Yes, I’ve been wading through a lot of B.S. on this site.
I’ll ask again as you have never answered this question.
Why did the IPCC remove Mann’s hockey stick graph from AR4?
The idea that gravity is constant over the entire surface of the earth is the illusion. Just like there being a known global temperature is an illusion.
Just like the ocean having a known PH level is an illusion.
What do the so called “Experts” have to say about Absolute Surface Temperature, SAT
“Q. What SAT do the local media report ?
A. The media report the reading of 1 particular thermometer of a nearby weather station. This temperature may be very different from the true SAT even at that location and has certainly nothing to do with the true regional SAT. To measure the true regional SAT, we would have to use many 50 ft stacks of thermometers distributed evenly over the whole region, an obvious practical impossibility”
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/abs_temp.html
@Mike:”The idea that gravity is constant over the entire surface of the earth is the illusion.”
Do you understand the joke? If gravity was constant over the entire Earth, then there could be no changes to detect. GRACE would detect nothing.
Your point, rather than diminishing gravity measurements, is the exact reason why they work. Mass changes (ice melting), gravity changes. Constant gravity *is* an illusion, and so we measure the minute changes and calculate how much mass had to be gained or lost to account for the change. Apparently you’re in agreement and don’t even know it.
I found this quite funny.
{constant} gravity is an illusion {that’s why GRACE works}
Steve go play golf in the upper midwest where they’ve had the mildest winter in memory. Neither proves anything in the context of GLOBAL warming.
Sheesh, you’re a maroon. How many years of GLOBAL warming do you need? Picking out a few cold spots doesn’t change the global record, you sad excuse for a ferret.
And how many years in a row do you need before you realize the CAGW theory has been falsified?
And how long are people like you going to continue your misanthropy in the cause of a fantasy?
Again, what temperature does ice melt at?
It’s funny that someone who is literally innumerate would purport to lecture. Perhaps you can tell us, O! Kevin O’neill: how many years of cooling are necessary to demonstrate that CO2 does not cause warming? 10? 15? 17.4? 30? 80? 120? 400? 1000?
Well they’ve been at this for 30 years, and half of that time has been flat or cooling….
..so since they only needed 15 years to say they proved it
the last 15 years can be used to dis-prove it
@Kevin: “But I’m not stupid enough to make that claim …”
You already did: “I need to go shovel snow (now that’s evidence of global warming – first time the shovel has been out and it’s mid-January in Wisconsin).”
Typical warmist. When it is abnormally warm in nowheresville, it is proof of AGW. Cooling for ten years? Cherrypicked data. You are ridiculous.
@LLAP: And apparently you’re immune to sarcasm, since my statement, “Now that’s proof of global warming…” was sarcastic. And you can’t logically read a sentence, because I immediately stated – and have stated several times elsewhere in the comment thread – that one locale or region (whether Nuuk or southern Wisconsin) proves nothing in the context of global warming. Duh!
Nyah, nyah.
@Kevin: “because I immediately stated … that one locale or region proves nothing in the context of global warming.”
Bullshit. This is what you said, “As proof or disproof of global warming, the lack of low temperatures or snow in the upper midwest is far more convincing that the temp data for Nuuk.”
MORON. The very next sentence says: “But I’m not stupid enough to make that claim – actual global temperature datasets are required. Oh, and we have those.”
Duh. You really can’t cherry-pick quotes when the source is like a half-page above your comment. Buy a clue.
Kevin:
You are wrong with the claim that we have “Actual Temperature Records”.
We have computer outputs that are being promoted to be “Actual Global Temperatures” when the producers even admit they are not Actual Temperatures bu extrapolations loosely based on some measurements that represent less than one hundredth of a percent of the surface area.
Read this about your actual temperatures:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/abs_temp.html
Excerpt:
Q. If SATs cannot be measured, how are SAT maps created ?
A. This can only be done with the help of computer models, the same models that are used to create the daily weather forecasts. We may start out the model with the few observed data that are available and fill in the rest with guesses (also called extrapolations) and then let the model run long enough so that the initial guesses no longer matter, but not too long in order to avoid that the inaccuracies of the model become relevant. This may be done starting from conditions from many years, so that the average (called a ‘climatology’) hopefully represents a typical map for the particular month or day of the year.
Read closely and you will find the word: HOPEFULLY.
Here is your fantasy!
Kevin:
You do not need to visit this place you are living the Fantasy with your belief in AGW
@Kevin: “The very next sentence says …”
1) Again, that is NOT what you said. You said, “because I immediately stated …”
The next sentence is not immediately. That is what I was referring to.
2) You are calling me a moron? That is rich considering you are delusional enough to believe the hockey stick is valid and you also are a winner of the Booby Prize:
http://www.real-science.com/kevin-oneill-wins-booby-prize
Steve said it right when he said, “What a complete waste of time talking to you.”
I won’t be wasting any more time. TTFN.
LLAP:
Did you mean to say:
@Mike: No, I meant this:
AH HA! I see!
Metric 10……… Laz thinks current conditions in Australia aren’t relevant to current drought conditions. Droughts are increasing because we had one……
Metric 11…….. Same for Texas
Metric 12…….. Another disingenuous graphic from Laz. NOAA explicitly states not to use a total count of tornadoes because of the changes in the reporting methods. Any moron knows this. And, what any moron should know is that U.S. tornadoes are tied to La Nina, in other words we see increases in tornadoes when the globe is cooling.
Metric 13….. Would it have satisfied Laz and the rest of the loons to include Dr. Ryan Maue’s graphics? Surely as sciency as the loonies are they are aware of this….. http://policlimate.com/tropical/ On an aside, does it matter if there is a squall in the middle of the ocean which doesn’t effect anything?
Metric 14………. again, you can’t compare past observations with present day and simply say see, they’re increasing! That’s vapid. Again, go here, http://policlimate.com/tropical/ but this is stating what is obvious.
Metric 15…….. yes by all means, go to the link Laz provided. http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/status/status-table.html Look at the dated information and the lack of proper coverage. It is meaningless relative to today. Lately best estimates of the entire polar bear population ranges from about 25,000-30,000 Up from about 5,000 a few decades ago. The information is freely available in several places …. use google
Metric 16 …….. apparently Laz, Kevin and the rest of the whackjobs were unaware of what the other part of the whackjobs were up to. A big hubbub was created when some animal people wanted more special protection for the grizzlies at Yellowstone, because of some trees dying, in spite of the fact that the population continues to grow and the in spite of another population of grizzlies losing the same species of trees and continued to thrive. This sort of advocacy has a horrible effect on the ecology of the specific locations. Bears, both polar and grizzlies need a relatively thin population density because the land can only support so many. Bears are highly adaptive, but they can easily become overpopulated. Dolts haven’t figured this out in spite of historical examples over and over again.
17……… Laz seems to take exception over some pale shading and accuses Steve of dishonesty, when the map to the left on the .pdf should be called into high question instead. But, when people “adjust” data, graphics and maps to fit their particular ideology they won’t say boo.
18……… Laz takes exception again calling Steve’s information silly and not relevant, but we hear and read over and over again about $dollars worth of damage increasing as proof of severity of flooding increases. Goose and gander. The fact is much of the alarm about CAGW is concern that we’ll all be flooded out. When Steve shows that less people are dying as a result of the floods, Laz can’t seem to make the connection.
19…….. Again, same whine from Laz…….
In closing, I have to say the hypocrisy and duplicity demonstrated by Laz and the rest of the loons is gob-smacking. Further, their apparent disconnect with what Steve is showing seems to me to be intentionally obtuse. If the planet warms and there is no increasing adverse effects, what difference does it make?
If they’re going to attack Steve for showing specific instances relating to much of the hyperbole surrounding the larger global climate discussion then I’m sure we can expect, the very next time we hear or read some blathering about a flood here, or a drought there or a polar bear in the water, we’ll see Laz, Kevin and the rest of the gang attack them with as much vim and vigor.
Oh snap! We don’t have to wait….. here is a loon discussing specific locations and addressing them as proof of climate change……. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/asif-iqbal/climate-change_b_1202984.html?ref=green
Go get him, boys!!! I’ll be monitoring the comments to see how aggressive you guys are in attaching dishonesty to Asif.
Thanks Kev…..
Have one in moderation……
@Stark Dickflüssig: Well, since you bring it up, you tell me. I would assume we’d have to control for other variables that affect climate; aerosols, TSI, etc. Then we could examine the system’s response to GHG – independent of other variables.
Perhaps there are peer-reviewed papers on the subject. Maybe someone has even built models to answer this question. It’s an interesting subject, I’ll have to look into it, but in the meantime – please enlighten us with your wisdom and knowledge.
Ah, I didn’t ask that. Why can’t you answer the question asked?
Ah, *I* didn’t ask that either. Why can’t *you* answer the question asked?
You didn’t answer the question, goober.
You didn’t answer the question either, goober.
Dear Kevin O’neill:
Just in case you wanted to know, James Hansen answered your question quite a few years ago: 15.
James Hansen is a scientist. You can’t even understand plain English.
I tried to give him a hint……
So, Hansen is a reliable source when he has the answer you want?
I think actual statisticians (Hansen isn’t a statistician) would tell you the number of years for annual temperatures to reach significance is 17. I could be wrong, but that’s my recollection.
Kevin:
How about 5,000 being more significant than 30, 50, 100, 200?
Thirty years is just weather when we know there are 60 year variations in weather patterns. Climate is about understanding the existence of variability.
The closest thing we have to “Global” temperature records is the satellites and there is not enough historical data in the satellite records to get past noisy weather events. Maybe another 200 years will tell a story rather than the fairy tales that are being promoted by your buddies today.
We have temperature records that extend back hundreds of years. We also have temperature reconstructions based on proxy data. Of course you *knew* that – just choose to ignore it.
Or should I say *deny* it. That is the essence, isn’t it?
Kevin:
We certainly have many temperature records that stretch back Millions of years and the longer the record you look at the more you see that we are living in a coolish period related to the long term Global Temperature.
You can observe many fluctuations in the proxies that are used to represent temperatures.
Personally I prefer the biological proxies that show growing conditions in regions that can not support some biological life forms today due to the cold temperatures in that region.
By your statement in the last post you admit you deny the reality of variable climate and we are experiencing some of the mildest weather patterns in the last 100 thousand years.
BTW: the globe has been cooling for the last 5,000 years.
Gravity is an illusion. Satellite records are an illusion. Any chance of you being intelligent is an illusion.
We have Nuuk – the one true temp. It only takes one temperature reading to disprove global warming. Thus spake Steviethrustra.
You have no problem with the one true temp, but you have trouble with global records that incorporate tens of thousands of data points? Some might consider this a sign of blindness. I, of course, regard it has a test of faith. Let none doubt the one true temp.
@suyts: At what temperature is Nuuk’s temperature dataset relevant to a discussion of global warming – or the honesty of Mann et al? Especially if Nuuk’s history is one of warming over the 20th century, not cooling?
Dear Kevin O’neill,
Is global temperature correlated with CO2?
Dear Stark Dickflüssig,
Why is the temperature of Nuuk (or any single locale) relevant in the context of global warming?
It is very complicated Kevin. Nuuk has the best temperature record in Greenland, which is supposed to warming like crazy and melting down – only it is cooling.
The temperatures at Nuuk warmed by over 1C in the 20th century. What cherry-picking is required to claim Nuuk is cooling?
It happened before 1920. Is your brain functional?
So. So what? What does the temperature in one southwestern Greenland community have to do with global warming? Nothing, you maroon.
You can’t look at one temperature and make any sort of global analysis. Well, *YOU* can …. but that’s because you’re stupid, ignorant, evil, or insane. Nobody in their right mind would make such a stupendously maroonic claim.
Nuuk warmed in the 20th century. Why did you cherry-pick the data?
What a complete waste of time talking to you.
Kevin:
You are displaying your ignorance here. Most likely the changes in temperature are the result of upgrading the measuring methods.
Now I really Do Not GAS about what some record claims the temperature did at that location because if the change is within + or – 4C of the current temperature it has not had a measurable change. (Potential errors must be compounded) 4C is on the low side of the potential errors at that location over that period of time.
Just like the so called “Global” temperature you as so in heat about, there is not enough “Reliable” data to make any claims one way or the other. It is all based on guess work / extrapolated and adjusted records, WAG resulting in GIGO!
It’s a complete waste of time because I actually expect you to answer the question. Why did you cherry-pick the data?
Why is the temperature in one locale important to global warming?
I’m more than willing to drop it and move on with an answer that makes *ANY* sort of sense. Of course that’s easy for me to say because I know there *isn’t* an answer that makes sense.
OK, I take that back – you could say: The only reason I included Nuuk is because I liked the name. Couldn’t think of any other way to include it so I threw it in on a lark. Yes, it would be asinine to extrapolate global or even regional trends from one otherwise unremarkable site, but I did and I’m never, ever, ever going to admit I was wrong.
That I might believe.
Mike, you are displaying your ignorance here. The question is whether the temperature in one locale can be used to make any sort of judgement on whether AGW is a successful or unsuccessful theory – and whether the temperature in Nuuk proves Mann et al honest.
We have a temperature record for Nuuk. Steve chose those years to show a declining trend. Choosing the entire 20th century wouldn’t agree with his argument. nothing you’ve said changes that. It’s called cherry-picking. Not only that, but the idea that one lone temp record from SW Greenland is indicative of warming over the entire globe is laughable. To compound it further, Steve then claimed that CO2 wasn’t increasing before 1920 (the cherry picked start year for his Nuuk graph).
Turtles all the way down.
Kevin, do you somehow imagine that you are saying anything intelligent?
Steve – why did you cherry pick the data for Nuuk?
How does one extrapolate global warming/cooling from one isolated site in Greenland? Please do show us the secret scientific formula so we can fire up Excel and prove it ourselves.
Or are you just stupid?
As pointed out in 423 other places in this comment section – the temperature of Nuuk is only ‘cooling’ if we truncate the data set. The complete record shows a gradual warming of approximately 1C over the 20th century.
I have not researched the last 11 years of data.
I believe this is called cherry-picking. Steve, why did you cherry pick the data?
Any chance you can tell us the criterion for ‘best’? Most accurate, longest, most instrumentally consistent, most representative of the entire landmass?
If you can’t think, I can’t help you. I have explained over and over and over again why your logic is flawed, but you have the mind of a two year old.
No, actually you haven’t explained anything. You said, “It’s complicated.” *That* is not an explanation. No explanation at all. Most of your comments have been one-line non-sequiturs.
Why did you cherry-pick the data? No answer.
Why is Nuuk the “best” temperature record? No answer.
How does one use one locale to extrapolate to an entire landmass? No answer.
Why is Nuuk relevant to global warming? No answer.
You’re shooting oh-fer-whatever. Which may actually have improved your average.
I haven’t mentioned it, you illiterate doofus. Reading isn’t just for people with IQs above 45, so you’re actually allowed to try once in a while.
You’re obsessed however, so let’s go with it: Has CO2 increased since 1930s? Has the temperature in Nuuk increased since 1930s? Did the Greenland ice-sheet disappear in 1930s? Will the Greenland ice-sheet disappear in the 21st century given that temperatures are not as warm as they were in the 1930s?
Come on, you can do it. This is first grade stuff. Think. And try not to change the subject too many more times today.
I have mentioned it you doofus; ‘it’ in this case being that temperatures at one location have no relevance in a global warming context — whether caused by CO2, hot marshmallows, or a wandering tribe of pygmies.
Glaobal warming does not postulate that every point on the globe will see an increase in temperature – you walnut. Is there some part of this you can’t comprehend? Why would one temperature allow us to extrapolate to the entire globe? Only a pea-brained, ignoramus, with a very small Dickens education would postulate such trash.
Obviously the shoe fits. You’re Cinderella. Congrats S. Dick.
Then why did you say that I had? Are you illiterate? Can you read? Did any of my statement make you think that I cared what you thought about some retarded notion that’s stuck in your pathetic brain? Did you miss the question that I asked? Did you answer it? Can you comprehend when someone smarter than you is speaking? Do you have a clue? Can you answer a question without calling names, you imbecilic faggot? Do you understand the basic uses of spelling and punctuation? Are you, in fact, retarded?
Stark:
I see the kid gloves are still on here!
@short_dick: Oh da poor baby bein’ called names. C’mon over here and let me give ya big hug honey chile.
“Goober.” As for our exchange of views, methinks you started it. Actually, “literally innumerate” preceded “goober” – but since you weren’t technically addressing me in that post …. either way, you insulted me first. Not that I care mind you, just a datum to consider.
So, SYFP.
Live long and prosper.
Last I checked I am under no obligation to answer your questions – and especially if you’re not willing to answer the same question yourself.
“Can you comprehend when someone smarter than you is speaking?”
Yes, I can. Has never happened on this side of the web. Wanna pull out SAT, or IQ scores and compare?
Oh, “Did any of my statement…”
Awkward, awkward. Did any _part_ of my statement …. works much better.
Kevin:
I looked at the temperature record used for Nuuk. I found the Annual average mean temperature varied by more than 6C for the last 110 years. Does adding 50 more years show a greater variation? I know that adding 2 hundred thousand years to the temperature record displayed by the various ice cores taken from Greenland show a wider variation in temperature and they also show we are experiencing weather in the upper mid range over that period. The simple answer is we are experiencing an “Interglacial period” Which AFAIK should be warmer than the Glacial Maximum Periods.
It can’t go back 110 years. Steve’s chart only goes back to 1930. You lie, or you’re accusing Steve of cherry-picking data.
None shall doubt the veracity of the one true temp else leather-winged demons shall visit you in the night.
You are arguing that Greenland warmed when CO2 was low, and has cooled over the last 80 years while CO2 was high.
No one here will disagree with you – as you shoot your self in the foot, over and over and over and over and over again.
No, I’m arguing you cherry-picked the data. I’ve not even begun to expound upon the actual meaning of the data. Let’s clear up one point at a time.
Why did you cherry-pick the data for Nuuk?
Nuuk has been cooling for 80 years, period. That is a statement of fact. I’m sorry that you are too stupid to understand it.
Hey Stark, why won’t you answer the question I asked? You get all excited when I won’t answer your questions, but it’s OK if you don’t answer questions I ask. That’s arrogant and rude.
Oh, and reading through your incomprehensible posts I’ve finally pieced together your pronouns and realize where stems the incoherency.
1. You ask a question.
2. I ask a question
3. You claim, you never mentioned it.
4. I agree, and say but I did.
5. You say, then why did you say that I (SD) did.
See the problem is I never said you mentioned it. I simply asked the question (which you refused to answer). Your claim is false, I never said you mentioned it anywhere, simply asked the question. Talking at cross purposes because of your use of ‘it’ without a clear reference. I tried to make your error clear at the time by explicitly stating what my use of ‘it’ referred to – you didn’t catch on (not surprising) and wandered down some bunny trail.
The question remains, why is Nuuk, or any single temperature, relevant in a discussion of global warming – especially when the data set presented for that locale has been cherry-picked?
Kevin,
You are either dishonest or stupid. 120 years is not a “single temperature” and temperatures in Greenland are critically important to the question of ice sheet melt.
I go for number 2.
For the record, I answered this so-called question. As did Steven Goddard. As did James & Paul as well. We were trying to help you understand. You just haven’t actually read the answers, which leads you to believe that you haven’t been answered.
No-one here can help you, Kevin O’neill. You’re simply too stupid to understand, and you’re illiterate, as well.
At the risk of being redundant, at what temperature does ice melt? That’s the relevance. Much of the hyperbole in regards to climate change is the argument that the arctic/Greenland is melting, and all of the melt from Greenland will drown us all.
Of course, one could also look at the recent GISS arctic representation and note the pink and red crayon marks as well. They extrapolate and interpolate, but only where and when it represents what they wish to convey.
Is Greenland melting? Well, all the evidence points to it (and the Canadian Archipelago) losing ice. Gigatons per year. Now, I suppose there’s no real evidence the ice is melting. We just know it isn’t there any longer – or suddenly got a lot lighter. Perhaps alien spacecraft are mining the ice – could be a correlation between increased UFO reports and GRACE readings. better check it out. GRACE, btw, is not a religious state, or your putative sister’s name.
Nuuk – the one true temp. Turtles all the way down.
Sea level has been falling for several years. Where is your melting ice going?
Several years? how significant is that?
How about the last 100? Or the last 50? Or the last 20?
Or is your remark only relevant in the cherry-picked data universe? Sorry, forgot where I was for a moment … really need to have warning signs on these websites that are strictly fantasy-land.
Kevin, wouldn’t you expect the sea level to rise coming out of the LIA?
As to the recent sea level measurements, it is significant. Where’s all the melt water? Is it really melting?
Actually Kevin:
According to records the ice may have been diminishing for about 250 years in some locations due to the end of a period called the LIA. Now the interesting thing about that is the ice has not retreated to the locations it was during a period called the MWP when people farmed land on Greenland that can not be farmed today because of *DRUM ROLL* Cold Conditions / ICE.
GRACE is a wannabe science experiment and those taking the recording do not even know what they are measuring.
Gravity is an illusion as there is no overall global gravity. It is a regional effect just like weather, climate, sea level and all the other BS that is “Averaged to make some “Global” statement. Even CO2 is not well Mixed in the atmosphere. There is no one PH level in the waters of the ocean.
Lets look at Global temperature: at any time on this planet the temperature may well be 120F somewhere and at any time on this planet the temperature may well be -80F. Does that mean the mean temperature for the planet is 20f right now and everyone is freezing their #### off. I know at my house it is close to 20F right now but I also know that there are places with a lot milder temperatures also.
GRACE is a nifty experimental device that will show regional gravity anomalies that someone one day will find causes for. It tells us very little about ice conditions and you are fooling yourself if you think otherwise.
@Mike – Gravity is an illusion.
You are a clown.
Seriously. A clown. The stoopid …. hurts.
Gravity is an illusion. Did I mention you are a lunatic. Do they allow computer access in asylums these days?
Gravity is an illusion. A clown. A freaking moronic clown. Check your meds.
Everybody else here in the ‘gravity is an illusion’ camp? Steve? Short Dick? LLAP? suyt?
Don’t be bashful now, I won’t think less of you. How could I, really.
Gravity is an illusion. Turtles all the way down can’t encompass that much stupid all at once.
Kevin,
You sound like you are drunk.
@suyts: Sea level rise? Are you still trying to find some justification for Nuuk? Give it up man, there isn’t one.
As an aside, I’ve never looked at global land-ice conditions coming out of the LIA. Seriously, never been a question I’ve considered. Any good papers on it you can recommend?
Steve – you sound like you are stupid.
Steve – besides sounding stupid, you never answered the rather simple question I asked; should I attribute that to too much alcohol on your part?
Are you part of the ‘gravity is an illusion’ camp?
C’mon now, poor Mike’s all a twitter that you haven’t jumped to his defense. Speak up man. Is gravity but an illusion?
Kevin:
What did I say?
“Gravity is an illusion as there is no overall global gravity. It is a regional effect just like weather, climate, sea level and all the other BS that is “Averaged to make some “Global” statement. Even CO2 is not well Mixed in the atmosphere. There is no one PH level in the waters of the ocean.
Gravity is not a CONSTANT but fluctuates for various reasons. GRACE is how they are now observing the regional variations.
@Mike: Gravity *is* an illusion, that’s the joke.
If gravity was constant there could be no GRACE. You have provided the theoretical basis for gravimetric measurements. Kudos my man.
Of course you got there for all the wrong reasons, don’t really understand *how* you got there, mistook an island for a continent, and seem to be a man facing southeast. Just hitch your pants and march on. Stumble, crawl, whatever …
Oh, and watch out where the huskies go ….
Do you even know where Nuuk is or what it’s actual temperatures are? The daily high in Nuuk is above freezing 6 months of the year. It’s temperatures are tightly constrained by being stuck between the sea and the icecap. Even still, daytime temps in summer can easily reach 50F. But in the context of global warming, who cares?
In the context of land-ice melting, well, let’s look at the actual measurements of land-ice. Isn’t that a better indication of whether the ice is melting or not than the average temperature in Nuuk? Of course it is. Jesus. F. Christ.
That it has an average temperature near zero means nuh-think! Don’t worry about being redundant, worry about being clueless.
For ice to melt the temperature only has to be above the melting point. Melting is NOT an indicator of warming but the temperature at the ice atmosphere interface. With sunlight warming the ice it can melt when the atmospheric temperature is below freezing also.
However atmospheric temperature can be 50F and the ice not melt because the temperature of the ice atmosphere interface remains below freezing.
The temperature reached 50+ at my place today and I still have snow on the ground in some locations. The temperature did not get above freezing yesterday but a good deal of the snow was gone by sunset last night.
Imagine that $hit.
The ice in that region has been melting for a few hundred years but has not reached the conditions it was in 1100.
Gravity is an illusion. Snow is an illusion. Greenland is an illusion.
I know Kevin, you were sent here to entertain us and I for one appreciate your warped sense of humor and your fairy tales.
Kevin:
FYI:
http://maps.google.com/maps?ftr=earth.promo&hl=en&utm_campaign=en&utm_medium=van&utm_source=en-van-na-us-gns-erth&utm_term=evl
I should have added, despite Steve not going all the way back for that specific time period, he does give us historical periods to compare to. If it was warmer in Nuuk in the 30s and we didn’t all drown between then and now, do you think we can draw some conclusions from that?
No.
The preceding Public Service Announcement was brought to you by…..
SmithKline….makers of Thorazine
“Bringing a brighter future to extreme misanthropists…one day at a time”
ROFLMAO
Lat:
I need to stop drinking before I read your comments!
Dear Kevin O’neill:
120% of the 20th century warming in Nuuk, Greenland (just so you can’t claim to be confused here) occurred before 1920, and yet you insist that Greenland is now “melting down”. Are you stupid?
Kevin
You have the right to remain silent, in case you incriminate yourself.
And since you didn’t catch on to the fact that short_dick was quoting Steve, not me, I guess you’ve already incriminated yourself.
Defendant Homeboy is charged with opening his yap with nothing intelligent to say.
Guilty as charged.
I said Greenland and the Canadian Archipelago are losing ice.
Steve said Greenland was ‘melting down’ – so you’re quoting Steve, not me. Simple mistake made by a simpleton. Jesus, can’t you even quote words written on the same page properly?
Is Nuuk the one true temp? Is it indicative of the entire icecap – oh, wait, it’s not even on the icecap. Buy a clue short dick.
Well there were only 19 fawning posts here when I posted my brief summary of Steve’s highly selective report. Now there are over 130. High praise must go to Kevin O’Neill for sticking to his guns about the irrelevance of using Nuuk as evidence against Arctic melting especially since he discovered that temperatures have actually risen since records began and not declined slightly as Steve duped most into believing. I have updated my post with this information.
By why has Mr Goddard not either removed his doctored chart or at least replaced it with the one he claims it to be?
I gave him the benefit of the doubt by suggesting he may have included it without realising it was altered from the original but if it remains as a misleading figure I can only assume that he was responsible for doctoring it himself with the intention to dupe gullible and unsceptical people.
suyts is a perfect example of this, claiming I take ‘exception over some pale shading’, but the original graph suggests over all warming while the doctored graph, where everything including neutral areas are coloured in bright blue to give the false suggestion that all these areas are cooling.
ALL I AM SUGGESTING IS THAT STEVE GODDARD REPLACES THE CHART HE USES WITH THE ONE HE CLAIMS IT TO BE. Do no ‘skeptics’ on here have the balls to tell him that is the least to expect when presenting evidence to support a claim?
Of course if he did that he could not claim that ‘the US has been cooling since 1895′, because it simply has not.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-JhP9yhB4vCM/TxRY28R-6mI/AAAAAAAAAXY/zrb9G_bidUI/s1600/Doctored+comparsion.jpg
Laz:
You are correct that Kevin has the balls to stand up and defend the fairy tales and your world of make believe.
Here is the Fawning you thought you saw:
Laz, why haven’t you responded to my rebuttals? Scroll up, I responded to all 19 of your posits. In fact, some of my responses would have changed since now and then……. turns out, there have been a few alarmists posts quantifying disasters by loss of life.
I’m certain you and Kevin will seek these people out and show them just how fallacious that methodology is! I would also note, that I gave a link to a group of people who pointed to specific locations and their weighted the occurrences and attributed them to climate change. For some of the silliest of reasons, I’m not allowed to comment there any longer. I’m sure you’ll pick up where I can’t, and carry the banner of showing them the errors in their ways…… the link is up in the thread……. it’s the usual suspects, HuffPo…. go get ‘em tiger!!! While you’re scrolling up, you should look at one of the links you provided Kevin….. polar bears, populations, but not unique to time but unique to specific locations……… Given yours and Kevin’s criticism of Steve and Nuuk, maybe you should revisit that bit of logic. Or, at least read the link you provided. …. much more to say, but…..
Laz, as always, its been a pleasure. I’ve had a bit already, but I’ll be back in the morrow.
My best,
James
PS……….. you should also revisit the sea level graphic you presented, younguns like Kevin are too impressionable, they may come to think it is okay to conflate separate data sets and trend them. If you don’t quite understand how fallacious CU is, go here….. http://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/01/11/the-true-decadal-temp-trend/
suyts: After visiting your link I’m forced to conclude that you’re an example of the ignorant and proud of it.
CU (isn’t that Pielke Jr’s haunting place?) didn’t just stitch some records together. And they sure wouldn’t need a team to do it. Any idiot with a spreadsheet could do it (heck, you didn’t even need a spreadsheet – you used woodfortrees online).
Don’t ya think maybe there’s a little more to it than that? ‘Course not, can’t be. Otherwise suyts would have to admit he hasn’t got a clue what the researchers actually did to produce their sea level reconstruction. suyts — Mann’s data is all available online. Reconstruct the temperature record for us. The data to reconstruct the sea level record is all available – reconstruct it for us? Show us how Mann or the CU group screwed up.
You can’t. Your either not smart enough or haven’t been educated in the necessary disciplines. I’m guessing not smart enough … not because you hold a different viewpoint than mine, but because *if* you were smart enough to do the job you’d realize how difficult it is.
Think of Muller and how much he questioned and ridiculed the climate scientists. Muller was a renowned physicist. Then he went out and did the reconstruction with the BEST group and … oops. Nothing to see here, move along. So, you see, your infantile little graphs might make you pee in your pants with laughter, but it’s purely sophomoric. It says more about you than it does about the science or the quality of the science.
Every denier with access to a spreadsheet thinks he can do better. Well, frankly, if they think that they’re stupid. You apparently think that, ergo, stupid. Sorry, that’s just the way it is.
Good question. Why haven’t you replaced the cherry-picked chart yet, Steve?
The data is straight off the GISS web site. Both of you are pathetic little weasels.
Mr Goddard, the juvenile name calling does not help the fact that what you say is a bare face lie. The chart you give comes with a link to a research paper;
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2009.pdf
The chart even states which figure in that paper it allegedly is;
“Fig. 13. Geographic distribution of linear trends in HCN version 2 temperatures for the period 1895–2007. (b) unadjusted maximum temperatures”
So you didn’t get the ‘data is straight off the GISS web site’. Why feel the need to lie?
But your chart is very different from the one you claimed it to be. It looks like it didn’t look cold enough for you, so you took the equivalent of a crayon and coloured everything you could bright blue.
So the question remains;
Why haven’t you replaced chart with the one you claim it to be?
BUT IT GETS WORSE
Particularly when you are so free to call actually sceptical people idiots and stupid.
So bad that it will be the subject of a post on Really Sciency.
The paper you link to isn’t even about temperatures in the US! It is about possible biases in the instrument data.
Nowhere does it support your claim that ‘that the US has been cooling since 1895’.
So you are either ignorant of this or are deliberately trying to misinform and mislead. By all means prove me wrong by linking to the ‘data is straight off the GISS web site’ and show how you graphed it to get the result you posted.
Do any of the so called ‘skeptics’ have the nerve to also point out that the chart isn’t as claimed? Any honest enough to state that it should be?
@Laz: “High praise must go to Kevin O’Neill for sticking to his guns …”
What else would you expect a firm believer in AGW to do? I have come to expect it from people like Kevin … his mind is completely closed. Personally, I used to believe in CAGW, as did Steve. I changed my mind when I saw that the evidence didn’t support the “catastrophic” meme. If anything, climate has become less extreme.
LLAP: Why did Steve cherry-pick the data and why haven’t you complained about it? Cherry-picking data is OK with you? Open mind indeed. It’s so open I think your brain fell out. Or is that just an M&M on the floor?
Kevin,
I hope you aren’t as dumb as you pretend to be.
80 years of Arctic cooling – while CO2 has increased 30% – is a disaster for alarmists, which is why Hansen just corrupted the Nuuk data.
Why aren’t you commenting on that?
Steve – why aren’t you commenting on why you cherry-picked the data? I’d like to get that one questioned answered before we move on to the next.
Kevin,
I will comment on the fact that your understanding of science and logic is incredibly dim.
80 years of cooling in Greenland, while CO2 increased 25% – is a death knell for your religion. The fact that it warmed when CO2 was even lower is the last nail in the coffin. Why do you keep bringing it up?
Steve – why did you cherry-pick the data?
It’s amazing how *I’m* the one accused of changing the subject (per short_dick) when all I want is an answer to a single question. No one will answer it and they all keep trying to change the subject.
Disconcerting.
Kevin, you are both a moron and a spamster.
Spamster? Your use of the language is unique.
Persistent, yes. Spam, hardly.
Now, if you *answer* the question and I keep asking for an answer – then my ‘bot must be broke.
@Kevin: “Or is that just an M&M on the floor?” and “Nyah Nyah”.
You are seriously juvenile. How old are you?
Let’s see, this comes from a person whose first reply to me included:
Now, my friend, that is not surprisingly going to set a certain tone to the discussion. Perhaps, just perhaps, you might have thought of this at the outset. Whining about the tone is the teeniest bit hypocritical at this juncture.
In other words, SYFP.
I do find it amusing that the people who are quickest to toss insults or use insulting language are also the ones who *complain* when they receive it in return. WELL DUH!
I’d love to actually explore the science (I don’t expect to here – and I’ve yet to be surprised). I usually go to places like Dosbat for that – though Chris R won’t thank me if any of you yahoos actually post the same kind of insane sh*t over there.
For instance, if discussing science were the actual goal, no one here would be defending Steve’s use of Nuuk. instead we’d be discussing the entire Greenlandic climate record. The link I provided way up top had 12 stations. They all show roughly the same temp curve. Peaks around 1935 and 1960. End of century temps 1+ degrees warmer than beginning of century.
Someone would have pointed to additional links providing the last decade (the records I pointed to ended yr 2000). Then we would have sorted them by latitude or some other geophysical attribute and looked for patterns; are the eastern warmer than the western? Northern vs southern? Coastal vs inland? Etc, etc.
Perhaps it’s just that Steve’s point was so indefensible (plus cherry-picking the data couldn’t have helped) that no one really thought a scientific exploration was worth the effort.
I neither know nor care. I expect tribalism when I come here. The mob, pack mentality. So I’m neither disappointed nor surprised when I find it. I can’t really think of a single post I’ve ever encountered here that has anything substantially interesting to say about the science. Granted, I can’t surf through all of Steve’s gish-gallop of factoids and reprints, but you’d think maybe, just maybe, somebody would say something intelligent about the actual science.
Kevin,
No one can help you with your stupidity problem.
Steve – I’d be smarter if you answered the question: Why did you cherry-pick the Nuuk data?
@Kevin: “Let’s see, this comes from a person whose first reply to me included:
You cling to your disbelief in AGW like a drowning sailor in the middle of the ocean clings to a waterlogged piece of his sunken ship.
Now, my friend, that is not surprisingly going to set a certain tone to the discussion.”
How do you think I am going to reply to someone whose first post on this thread had this in the second paragrapgh:
“Now, you knew this when you put it together – but why? Why do you need to lie or mislead? I realize you never actually engage in meaningful dialogue here – just pithy or asinine comments – but it always interests me to try and understand why people feel the need to lie or mislead during an argument, discussion or debate in order to ‘prove’ their point.
I’ve long held the belief that people like yourself are either stupid, ignorant, evil, or insane.”
Now, who was setting the tone for the discussion. Well?
@Kevin: I forgot to include this little gem from your first post:
“Being a non-religious person I can’t take solace in the belief that those who oppose truth will get their just punishment in some eternal hell created by a vengeful god. ”
Again, who was setting the tone?
Way too much red Kool-Aid on this thread!
And one too many inane one-line posts.
By commenters with vaguely communist sounding names. Ever meet GI Joe?
Very good…you could learn from your advice here – you’ve only used 2 lines, and it’s the first post you’ve made that is sort of coherent.
A prick certainly, but a slightly more coherent prick.
Dear Lazarus,
The word “Gullible” isn’t in the dictionary.
Perhaps you can explain what you mean?
Do you believe Steve’s chart is fundamentally the same as that from the figure he claims it is from?
Do you believe that Steve got his chart ‘straight off the GISS web site’?
Perhaps you could give answers to those straight forward questions and then tell me what you think ‘gullible’ means?
Why, I’ve seen the very same chart as published elsewhere. Are you saying that it doesn’t exist anywhere but this site?
Sea Gull Barf / Gull-i-Bile
But perhaps you could answer the same straight questions?
And anyone else who regards this site as a credible source of information?
Lazarus, perhaps you’d care to answer a few questions yourself.
Why don’t you grow a pair and start the ball(s) rolling?
I have now had a good look at the Paper Steve references and claims his doctored chat if from and more details can be found in my blog;
http://reallysciency.blogspot.com/2012/01/doctored-goddard.html
But basically Steve Claims that the ‘USHCN raw thermometer data shows that the US has been cooling since 1895′ and uses a doctored chart from his ‘evidenced’ link;
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2009.pdf
But the link states that ‘”Geographically, maximum temperature (Fig. 13a) has increased in most areas except in parts of the east central and southern regions. Minimum temperature (Fig. 13c) exhibits the same pattern of change, though the pockets of decreasing temperature are displaced slightly to the south and west relative to maximum temperature.”
Perhaps he should have read his evidence just to make sure it wasn’t actually proving the opposite of his claims.
I ask again, does any ‘skeptic’ here have the courage to stand up and state that a chart should look like the one it is claimed to be, unaltered from the original?
Hey Lazarus. You are scum. The chart accurately shows regions of increasing and decreasing temperatures from the NOAA map. If you disagree find a region where my map is incorrect. Otherwise, just admit that you are liar.
http://www.real-science.com/enough-is-enough
I have been following this discusion with interest.
However, if I were Steve, I would not bother replying to the ignorant rubbish expounded by Kevin O’Neill and Lazarus, who are both determind to ignore the facts produced by Steve, which cleary prove that there is no “Global Warming”, just obfuscation and alarm designed to encourage taxes and carbon traders.
Dear Mr. Goddard,
Since you seem to think I was being unjust at focusing on just some of your measures, I have now looked at your 3rd claim;
Sea level has been declining for several years, and is lower now than it was in 2003
http://reallysciency.blogspot.com/2012/02/sea-level-has-been-declining-for.html
And have found it lacking. Feel free to call me childish names and demand a retraction, but I stand by the evidence.
BTW which are the several years that have been declining?