Answers wanted from "global warming" supporters

[edthecynic]

You're nothing more than a deliberately myopic agw hack.....since when does late "direct instrument measurement" obfuscate the history of the earth obtained through other scientific means? Oh yeah....ever since your garbage got started.....

Direct measurement has always been the standard proxy data is measured against.
You are obviously sore you were caught with your phony chart.
Of course, when caught with a phony chart, you simply post another phony chart.
Here's a real chart.

Two points:

The anamolies as measured by the two staelite sources and by the Land based stations seem to be pretty close. Why you routinely attack the data from the satelite stations escapes me.

I don't attack all data from satellites, only the cooked data by Spencer and Christy from UAH.

Why it still escapes you, escapes me, since I have repeatedly told you I object to the UAH data which used the opposite sign to calculate Diurnal Satellite Drift, which is the data deniers use exclusively. The chart I posted shows the RSS data which deniers never use along with the UAH data corrected by Mears and Wentz from RSS using the correct sign for Diurnal Drift which deniers also never use.
If you stop using the cooked UAH data I will stop objecting to your using the UAH data cooked by Spencer and Christy.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Direct measurement has always been the standard proxy data is measured against.
You are obviously sore you were caught with your phony chart.
Of course, when caught with a phony chart, you simply post another phony chart.
Here's a real chart.

I'm not sore at all....my charts are fine.....yours is too....it shows the decline as well...

Only in bizarro-land!!!

The trend-line undeniably points UP.

Not so. Temps have recently evened out or headed down....as shown in your graph if you look at the latter measurements more carefully....(the graph below shows this more clearly)

Also....we were comparing temps along with CO2....since this is the big argument....look at the big gap....CO2 keeps going up but the temps do not...

 

[edthecynic]

Here are some actual numbers:

The Reference Frame: UAH MSU: temperatures for 2009 and ranking

Bonus: linear regression

As a bonus, I will list you the UAH warming trends (recalculated to temperature changes in °C per century) for various intervals:

1995-2009: +0.95 °C/century
1996-2009: +0.89 °C/century
1997-2009: +0.41 °C/century
1998-2009: -0.24 °C/century
1999-2009: +1.22 °C/century
2000-2009: +0.53 °C/century
2001-2009: -0.78 °C/century
2002-2009: -1.56 °C/century
2003-2009: -1.43 °C/century
2004-2009: -1.43 °C/century
2005-2009: -3.70 °C/century
2006-2009: -2.30 °C/century
2007-2009: -1.00 °C/century
2008-2009: +21.0 °C/century

Of course, the last one must be taken with a big grain of salt. ;-) Otherwise, you can see among these 14 trends, 6 are warming (generously counting the huge 2008-2009 trend as well) while 8 are cooling! ;-) I could be more quantitative but this is roughly what we mean by saying that there has been no statistically significant warming in the last 15 years.

The periods calculated by your blog source, and not UAH, can't possibly be accurate based on the annual UAH chart they provided.

The annual UAH anomalies from 1995 to 2009 are:
{0.11, 0.02, 0.05, 0.51, 0.04, 0.04, 0.2, 0.31, 0.28, 0.19, 0.34, 0.26, 0.28, 0.05, 0.26}

If you notice, all the periods beginning with the coldest years show a positive warming trend when compared to the century average or calculated as a century average (it's hard to tell what the blogger is actually calculating/cooking) and all the years beginning with a warm year show negative warming, especially the period beginning with 1998 showing a negative warming trend!!!!! If that list is to be believed, the more warm years to cold years in the period used, the cooler the trend.

It looks like your blogger suffers from wrong-signitis like Christy and Spencer.

 

[edthecynic]

I'm not sore at all....my charts are fine.....yours is too....it shows the decline as well...

Only in bizarro-land!!!

The trend-line undeniably points UP.

Not so. Temps have recently evened out or headed down....as shown in your graph if you look at the latter measurements more carefully....(the graph below shows this more clearly)

Also....we were comparing temps along with CO2....since this is the big argument....look at the big gap....CO2 keeps going up but the temps do not...

I love it, after bitching about using data that begins in the 1880s for being too SHORT a period, even though it is the ENTIRE period of direct instrument measurement, you hypocritically now use a very short period of the entire satellite data which began in 1978 to make YOUR point.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Only in bizarro-land!!!

The trend-line undeniably points UP.

Not so. Temps have recently evened out or headed down....as shown in your graph if you look at the latter measurements more carefully....(the graph below shows this more clearly)

Also....we were comparing temps along with CO2....since this is the big argument....look at the big gap....CO2 keeps going up but the temps do not...

I love it, after bitching about using data that begins in the 1880s for being too SHORT a period, even though it is the ENTIRE period of direct instrument measurement, you hypocritically now use a very short period of the entire satellite data which began in 1978 to make YOUR point.

Ah...you are finally seeing the light.....maybe.....

So how about that Little Ice Age question.....? Or do you only believe in "direct instrument measurement"?

waiting....

 

[code1211]

Only in bizarro-land!!!

The trend-line undeniably points UP.

Not so. Temps have recently evened out or headed down....as shown in your graph if you look at the latter measurements more carefully....(the graph below shows this more clearly)

Also....we were comparing temps along with CO2....since this is the big argument....look at the big gap....CO2 keeps going up but the temps do not...

I love it, after bitching about using data that begins in the 1880s for being too SHORT a period, even though it is the ENTIRE period of direct instrument measurement, you hypocritically now use a very short period of the entire satellite data which began in 1978 to make YOUR point.

Which shows the folly of any attempt to measure geological change in the space of 120 or 8 years.

Even 1000 years is only 1% of the current interglacial cycle. 120 years is only 0.12% of that and about 0.02% of the 600,000 years of the glaciation cycles we are now in. What percent of 4 billion is 200?

The point is this: If we use a scale of 10 years, warming is not happening. If we use a scale of 4000 years, warming is not happening. If we use a scale of 600,000 years, warming and cooling can be shown to have happened and warmed and cooled more than now.

By almost any scale of time, we know that the warming we are currently experiencing is nothing to get excited about. It is only when we use a time scale of the 120 years between 1880 and 2000 and absolutely deny a review of any other time span that this warming is apparently exceptional.

Regarding the satelite data, I tend to put far more stock in it than in the Ground stations which have shown numerous glitches. The satelite data, from your graph seems to very accurately mirror the ground stations station data. It is only in the comparative change within any data set that any meaning can be garnered.

We are talking about comparitives.

Still waiting for the link about the diurnal shift equation and the change it produced in the resulting data, if it is still being used and if any corrections have been made in the data or the methodology.

 

[edthecynic]

Not so. Temps have recently evened out or headed down....as shown in your graph if you look at the latter measurements more carefully....(the graph below shows this more clearly)

Also....we were comparing temps along with CO2....since this is the big argument....look at the big gap....CO2 keeps going up but the temps do not...

I love it, after bitching about using data that begins in the 1880s for being too SHORT a period, even though it is the ENTIRE period of direct instrument measurement, you hypocritically now use a very short period of the entire satellite data which began in 1978 to make YOUR point.

Which shows the folly of any attempt to measure geological change in the space of 120 or 8 years.

Even 1000 years is only 1% of the current interglacial cycle. 120 years is only 0.12% of that and about 0.02% of the 600,000 years of the glaciation cycles we are now in.

You just make these numbers up!

CON$ play fast and loose with decimal points in their "Fuzzy Math."

In the current glaciation cycles, most interglacial warm periods are 10,000 years or less. So 1,000 years is ten times more than your "estimate."

 

[code1211]

I love it, after bitching about using data that begins in the 1880s for being too SHORT a period, even though it is the ENTIRE period of direct instrument measurement, you hypocritically now use a very short period of the entire satellite data which began in 1978 to make YOUR point.

Which shows the folly of any attempt to measure geological change in the space of 120 or 8 years.

Even 1000 years is only 1% of the current interglacial cycle. 120 years is only 0.12% of that and about 0.02% of the 600,000 years of the glaciation cycles we are now in.

You just make these numbers up!

CON$ play fast and loose with decimal points in their "Fuzzy Math."

In the current glaciation cycles, most interglacial warm periods are 10,000 years or less. So 1,000 years is ten times more than your "estimate."

The cycles are about 100,000 years, probably a tad longer. Warming is one part of any of the cycles. Cooling is another part. Within any warming or cooling trend are smaller warming and cooling trends.

The whole period of galciation of an interglacials is a fairly recent set of cycles. Probably less than a million years.

All of the interglacials for which there is data have topped out at temperatures higher than we currently have achieved and at lower levels of CO2.

Go figure.

 

[edthecynic]

Which shows the folly of any attempt to measure geological change in the space of 120 or 8 years.

Even 1000 years is only 1% of the current interglacial cycle. 120 years is only 0.12% of that and about 0.02% of the 600,000 years of the glaciation cycles we are now in.

You just make these numbers up!

CON$ play fast and loose with decimal points in their "Fuzzy Math."

In the current glaciation cycles, most interglacial warm periods are 10,000 years or less. So 1,000 years is ten times more than your "estimate."

The cycles are about 100,000 years, probably a tad longer. Warming is one part of any of the cycles. Cooling is another part. Within any warming or cooling trend are smaller warming and cooling trends.

The whole period of galciation of an interglacials is a fairly recent set of cycles. Probably less than a million years.

All of the interglacials for which there is data have topped out at temperatures higher than we currently have achieved and at lower levels of CO2.

Go figure.

So typical of CON$, you can never admit you made a mistake!

And interglacial temp ESTIMATES are based on proxies so they cannot be compared to direct instrument measurements.

 

[saveliberty]

I'm not sore at all....my charts are fine.....yours is too....it shows the decline as well...

Only in bizarro-land!!!

The trend-line undeniably points UP.

Not so. Temps have recently evened out or headed down....as shown in your graph if you look at the latter measurements more carefully....(the graph below shows this more clearly)

Also....we were comparing temps along with CO2....since this is the big argument....look at the big gap....CO2 keeps going up but the temps do not...

See, CO2 created by MAN makes the temp go up. Normal CO2, not so much.

 

[edthecynic]

Only in bizarro-land!!!

The trend-line undeniably points UP.

Not so. Temps have recently evened out or headed down....as shown in your graph if you look at the latter measurements more carefully....(the graph below shows this more clearly)

Also....we were comparing temps along with CO2....since this is the big argument....look at the big gap....CO2 keeps going up but the temps do not...

See, CO2 created by MAN makes the temp go up. Normal CO2, not so much.

Phony CO2 charts from deniers make temp go down, real CO2 charts show temps rising.

 

[saveliberty]

Here's a real chart.

This is your "real" chart right Ed? Looks like the temperatures are dropping to me. I assume your CO2 is going up. What gives?

 

[keee keee]

Who say the years from 1900 to 2000 are normal years these years might be higher or lower temps from all the other years in the past. you have no idea what the temps were in the past this is all bullshit!!!!all a scam to steal money from the workers of the world. a money transfer scam!!!!

 

[keee keee]

show me graphs for the last 20000 years if you dont't have the data shut the fuck up this is all bullshit!!!!!

 

[edthecynic]

Here's a real chart.

This is your "real" chart right Ed? Looks like the temperatures are dropping to me. I assume your CO2 is going up. What gives?

All three trend lines point up and deniers see them pointing down.
Do you see CO2 going down too???

 

[code1211]

show me graphs for the last 20000 years if you dont't have the data shut the fuck up this is all bullshit!!!!!

Such passion...

The first link below is for approximately the last 12000 years and the second one is for the last 450,000 years. Both show temperatures significantly higher than that of today. Neither have a particular moment marked in which SUV's gained popularity.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/b/bb/Holocene_Temperature_Variations_Rev.png

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/8/8f/Ice_Age_Temperature_Rev.png

 

[Sinatra]

show me graphs for the last 20000 years if you dont't have the data shut the fuck up this is all bullshit!!!!!

Such passion...

The first link below is for approximately the last 12000 years and the second one is for the last 450,000 years. Both show temperatures significantly higher than that of today. Neither have a particular moment marked in which SUV's gained popularity.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/b/bb/Holocene_Temperature_Variations_Rev.png

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/8/8f/Ice_Age_Temperature_Rev.png

 

[Chris]

What happens in the past does not matter.

Nice try at changing the subject, however.

The only thing that matters is what effect increasing atmospheric CO2 by 40-50% will have on the earth.

This can be calculated pretty easily. According to MIT's computer models, it should increase the earth's temperature by 4-7 degrees in the next century.

This is within the context of the Sun's activity...of course.

 

[obama2ndterm]

No Jesus did not ride a dinosaur.Science denier

 

[jeffrockit]

Just almost 100% of the scientists involved in climate research.

Have a link to back up that fraudulent claim?

I didn't think so.

The quote should have read "just almost 100% of the Cherry Picked" scientists involved.
The warming religion doesn't need links and even if they had them, with current news of destroyed date and fudged numbers, what would it tell us?