Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So where's the heat? If they are going to make such an absurd claim they really should be able to back it up with something...
Strange what they call "evidence".
Since when does "may have", "most agree ...that probably has been.." etc qualify as evidence. Another term that appears over and over again in these pseudo science "studies" is "may have been underestimated".
What`s the word "estimated" doing in all these so called scientific studies that claim to be based on evidence such as actual measurements ?
If the oceans warmed up 15 times faster in the past 60 years there is no way this trend could have been hidden from the probes we have been using for now almost 50 years.
They just can`t let go of the hockeystick. If there is no evidence above the surface then it must be in the ocean. If it can`t be found in the oceans then it must be in the depth beyond the reach of our probes.
And the proxy "thermometers" get sillier all the time.
Anything...no matter how absurd, what matters is to keep the dead frog`s legs twitching
Scientists typically underestimate future scenarios and predictions because they are cautious and, believe it or not, conservative in their estimates when there is a relatively high degree of uncertainty. Surely you've heard of what they call in statistics, degrees of freedom, in physics, they have what is called sigma. The first hint of the Higgs was a sigma 3. Further data took that to sigma 4. Sigma 5 is the highest degree of certainty in physics. They use these benchmarks because NOTHING is certain in science. There is nothing unusual about this, nor is there anything unusual about climate scientists qualifying their results. That's what all scientists do.
Tell you what Mr Bear. Fuck you and the weasel you rode in on. You haven't refuted jack shit except the unsupportable contention that you have some idea what you're talking about.
Odd acusation? In light of this?
Your second graph there makes an interesting claim: "Almost all show Earth hotter than it is... some by as much as 1C". However, the last observation value reads about 14.2C (unidentified reference) yet no datum in the assembly of model predictions exceeds 14.9 at that point. Someone seems to have a problem with basic math.
As to the value of your CO2 vs temperature graph, a discussion of climate trends would be better served by a longer view. Something like:
As an added bonus, note that the dip in CO2 level about 1940 PRECEDES the drop in global temperature.
When you choose a narrow period over which to make claims, you'd best be ready for a charge of "CHERRY-PICKING". Before you can even think about making claims based on the last 15 years, you need to provide a working explanation for the last 150 . You have not done so. The current hiatus has not exceeded the natural variability demonstrated in the climatic record. The world is still getting warmer and the primary cause is human GHG emissions. That's accepted science. And attempting to use tabloid articles to counter that accepted science is simply and truly pathetic.
You post a graph that has no possibility of being taken seriously. The ERROR bars are greater than the instruments can measure, or did that FACT escape your pointy little head?
What graph are you talking about? The BTK 2013 OHC graph has been taken quite seriously and I'm having a great deal of difficulty understanding what you mean when you say "The error bars are greater than the instruments can measure". I was unaware that bathythermographs in common usage were troubled by restrictive upper limits. Would you care to explain? For that matter, would you care to show us what graph you're actually talking about?
Which is the basis for this dirty trick:The Elusive Absolute Surface Air Temperature (SAT)
Q. What exactly do we mean by SAT ?
A. I doubt that there is a general agreement how to answer this question. Even at the same location, the temperature near the ground may be very different from the temperature 5 ft above the ground and different again from 10 ft or 50 ft above the ground. Particularly in the presence of vegetation (say in a rain forest), the temperature above the vegetation may be very different from the temperature below the top of the vegetation. A reasonable suggestion might be to use the average temperature of the first 50 ft of air either above ground or above the top of the vegetation. To measure SAT we have to agree on what it is and, as far as I know, no such standard has been suggested or generally adopted. Even if the 50 ft standard were adopted, I cannot imagine that a weather station would build a 50 ft stack of thermometers to be able to find the true SAT at its location.
Q. What do we mean by daily mean SAT ?
A. Again, there is no universally accepted correct answer. Should we note the temperature every 6 hours and report the mean, should we do it every 2 hours, hourly, have a machine record it every second, or simply take the average of the highest and lowest temperature of the day ? On some days the various methods may lead to drastically different results.
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.
Global-average temperature records - Met Office
The HadCRUT4 record, which is produced by the Met Office in collaboration with the Climatic Research Unit, takes in observations from about 2,000 land stations each month. The figures for each one are checked both by computer and manually to find and remove any problems. Sea-surface temperature observations come from about 1,200 drifting buoys deployed across the world's oceans and around 4,000 ships in the Voluntary Observing Ship programme. There are also numerous moored buoys in the tropics and in coastal regions, principally around the US. Together they take around 1.5 million observations each month. These are checked by computer and any obviously inaccurate readings are excluded.
Absolute temperatures are not used directly to calculate the global-average temperature. They are first converted into 'anomalies', which are the difference in temperature from the 'normal' level. The normal level is calculated for each observation location by taking the long-term average for that area over a base period. For HadCRUT4, this is 1961-1990.
For example, if the 1961-1990 average September temperature for Edinburgh in Scotland is 12 °C and the recorded average temperature for that month in 2009 is 13 °C, the difference of 1 °C is the anomaly and this would be used in the calculation of the global average.
One of the main reasons for using anomalies is that they remain fairly constant over large areas. So, for example, an anomaly in Edinburgh is likely to be the same as the anomaly further north in Fort William and at the top of Ben Nevis, the UK's highest mountain. This is even though there may be large differences in absolute temperature at each of these locations.
The anomaly method also helps to avoid biases. For example, if actual temperatures were used and information from an Arctic observation station was missing for that month, it would mean the global temperature record would seem warmer.
Idiots like you will never realize when you`ve been had.Using anomalies means missing data such as this will not bias the temperature record.
You realize you never addressed the point under discussion.
For the last 150 years, temperature has been following CO2.
BTW, I haven't been to Skeptical Science in weeks. Believe it or not, there are actually OTHER websites that have accurate information about climate change.
Actually I have addressed "the point under discussion", which was not if temperature followed CO2 or what happened for the last 150 years.You realize you never addressed the point under discussion.
For the last 150 years, temperature has been following CO2.
BTW, I haven't been to Skeptical Science in weeks. Believe it or not, there are actually OTHER websites that have accurate information about climate change.
but you refuse to admit that yet again you got caught contradicting yourself.As an added bonus, note that the dip in CO2 level about 1940 PRECEDES the drop in global temperature",...which in no way meets your 150 year qualifier that you employ when the sequence of events is reversed, as it has been for over 15 years now.
Temperature anomalies could not be determined anywhere near the precision 150 years ago as what we set as a minimum standard for the few decades since the late 60`s when started to use satellite remote sensing technology.
Funny how CO2 has been following temperature since the beginning of time, isn't it?You realize you never addressed the point under discussion.
For the last 150 years, temperature has been following CO2.
BTW, I haven't been to Skeptical Science in weeks. Believe it or not, there are actually OTHER websites that have accurate information about climate change.
Funny how CO2 has been following temperature since the beginning of time, isn't it?You realize you never addressed the point under discussion.
For the last 150 years, temperature has been following CO2.
BTW, I haven't been to Skeptical Science in weeks. Believe it or not, there are actually OTHER websites that have accurate information about climate change.
Since Man started emitting CO2, I guess it just got stronger.
\
Actually he DID.
Funny how CO2 has been following temperature since the beginning of time, isn't it?You realize you never addressed the point under discussion.
For the last 150 years, temperature has been following CO2.
BTW, I haven't been to Skeptical Science in weeks. Believe it or not, there are actually OTHER websites that have accurate information about climate change.
Since Man started emitting CO2, I guess it just got stronger.
If you warm the world, you'll get CO2: from melted tundra, increased anaerobic breakdown and decreased oceanic carbonate solubility. But that doesn't alter the fact that CO2 willmake the world warmer.Code:
For a good part of the Earth's history, CO2 DOES follow temperature increases caused by other means. But, as Marcott (of Marcott and Rahmstorff) found, once the process has begun, CO2 comes to lead temperature in almost every case. That is, something causes the Earth to warm: a solar maximum, an orbital variation, extreme vulcanism....the added warmth causes CO2 in the atmosphere to build up. The CO2 begins to trap solar energy and after a few hundred years pass, it is that greenhouse effect that drives the continued warming.
You found a picture of a sediment core. You DIDN'T prove how it fits Fla's condition: "if those 10,000 yr mud samples from the Pacific can FIND 0.18degC and do THAT with 60 years of TIME RESOLUTION ".I stipulate that I get to decide on how to prepare it and the rate of consumption.. I'm thinking lemon, garlic, butter with some herbs...
Probably pretty healthy dietary supplement... But this is not gonna happen...
Fine by me. Have at it.
Funny how CO2 has been following temperature since the beginning of time, isn't it?You realize you never addressed the point under discussion.
For the last 150 years, temperature has been following CO2.
BTW, I haven't been to Skeptical Science in weeks. Believe it or not, there are actually OTHER websites that have accurate information about climate change.
Since Man started emitting CO2, I guess it just got stronger.
If you warm the world, you'll get CO2: from melted tundra, increased anaerobic breakdown and decreased oceanic carbonate solubility. But that doesn't alter the fact that CO2 will make the world warmer.
For a good part of the Earth's history, CO2 DOES follow temperature increases caused by other means. But, as Marcott (of Marcott and Rahmstorff) found, once the process has begun, CO2 comes to lead temperature in almost every case. That is, something causes the Earth to warm: a solar maximum, an orbital variation, extreme vulcanism....the added warmth causes CO2 in the atmosphere to build up. The CO2 begins to trap solar energy and after a few hundred years pass, it is that greenhouse effect that drives the continued warming.
I chuckle everytime I see that paper summarized as BTK 2013...
Heeeee'sss BACK !!!!! The Bind, Torture, Kill serial killer. And he's coming to a Journal near you soon.
Betcha Trenberth took second billing just to get that acronym...
Bind, Torture, Kill is what they want to do to the economies of the entire Western world..."for our own good", of course.
What has happened to the Haiyan thread?
I don't give a rat's ass what happened during the MWP or the LIA or any other pre-human period. WE are the cause of the current temperature rise. All this MWP crap is 100% worthless distraction.
When dealing with a cyclical system, it helps to know what happened during previous cycles.
But thanks for proving yet again you're simply not serious about science.
The heat in the oceans is hiding as humidity.Pacific Ocean waters absorbing heat 15 times faster over past 60 years than in past 10,000
Read more at: Pacific Ocean waters absorbing heat 15 times faster over past 60 years than in past 10,000
wow, the evidence just keeps coming in.
So where's the heat? If they are going to make such an absurd claim they really should be able to back it up with something...
Strange what they call "evidence".
Since when does "may have", "most agree ...that probably has been.." etc qualify as evidence. Another term that appears over and over again in these pseudo science "studies" is "may have been underestimated".
What`s the word "estimated" doing in all these so called scientific studies that claim to be based on evidence such as actual measurements ?
If the oceans warmed up 15 times faster in the past 60 years there is no way this trend could have been hidden from the probes we have been using for now almost 50 years.
They just can`t let go of the hockeystick. If there is no evidence above the surface then it must be in the ocean. If it can`t be found in the oceans then it must be in the depth beyond the reach of our probes.
And the proxy "thermometers" get sillier all the time.
Anything...no matter how absurd, what matters is to keep the dead frog`s legs twitching
Scientists typically underestimate future scenarios and predictions because they are cautious and, believe it or not, conservative in their estimates when there is a relatively high degree of uncertainty. Surely you've heard of what they call in statistics, degrees of freedom, in physics, they have what is called sigma. The first hint of the Higgs was a sigma 3. Further data took that to sigma 4. Sigma 5 is the highest degree of certainty in physics. They use these benchmarks because NOTHING is certain in science. There is nothing unusual about this, nor is there anything unusual about climate scientists qualifying their results. That's what all scientists do.
They've not been cautious nor have they been conservative. The models have vastly overestimated the amount of warming.
Global Warming Slowdown: The View from Space « Roy Spencer, PhD
The models suck.
Funny how CO2 has been following temperature since the beginning of time, isn't it?
Since Man started emitting CO2, I guess it just got stronger.
If you warm the world, you'll get CO2: from melted tundra, increased anaerobic breakdown and decreased oceanic carbonate solubility. But that doesn't alter the fact that CO2 willmake the world warmer.Code:
For a good part of the Earth's history, CO2 DOES follow temperature increases caused by other means. But, as Marcott (of Marcott and Rahmstorff) found, once the process has begun, CO2 comes to lead temperature in almost every case. That is, something causes the Earth to warm: a solar maximum, an orbital variation, extreme vulcanism....the added warmth causes CO2 in the atmosphere to build up. The CO2 begins to trap solar energy and after a few hundred years pass, it is that greenhouse effect that drives the continued warming.
Nice story.. except for the absence of all the other climate driving parameters.. How could you leave for instance, the DOMINATE GHGAs out of your fairytale version of how climate works?
