The CO2 Problem in 6 Easy Steps

[mamooth]

Frank, you're sounding shrill and desperate now.

As the temperatures keep climbing, your cult's conspiracy theories will keep looking dumber and dumber. The longer you cling to them, the more painful it will be to finally drop them. The smarter rats will be leaving the ship before it sinks. You? You'll probably go down with it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank, you're sounding shrill and desperate now.

As the temperatures keep climbing, your cult's conspiracy theories will keep looking dumber and dumber. The longer you cling to them, the more painful it will be to finally drop them. The smarter rats will be leaving the ship before it sinks. You? You'll probably go down with it.

So, what's your theory on the "record breaking" May homogeneity adjusted heat wave? and remember calling me a "Denier" is not a theory

 

[Kosh]

The AGW cult has labeled CO2 as pollutant and thus shows that this based on a religious belief other than any real science.

Then again they want to spent 42 Trillion dollars to try and control the 1% that human contribute to this.

Suck on my tailpipe, you twerp.

More proof that the AGW cult is promoting a lie based on their religious beliefs and not based on any science.

 

[Kosh]

Frank, you're sounding shrill and desperate now.

As the temperatures keep climbing, your cult's conspiracy theories will keep looking dumber and dumber. The longer you cling to them, the more painful it will be to finally drop them. The smarter rats will be leaving the ship before it sinks. You? You'll probably go down with it.

I know let us study climate in a warming phase and create mass hysteria while we do it.

It is like all those extreme weather events that happen in cycles and blame them on the warming climate, even though existed long before the AGW religion.

 

[orogenicman]

The AGW cult has labeled CO2 as pollutant and thus shows that this based on a religious belief other than any real science.

Then again they want to spent 42 Trillion dollars to try and control the 1% that human contribute to this.

Suck on my tailpipe, you twerp.

More proof that the AGW cult is promoting a lie based on their religious beliefs and not based on any science.

Non-sequitur. Atheists, such as myself, don't have any religious beliefs. But thanks for proving my point.

 

[daveman]

Gosh, you're stupid. Let's do a little math. Take off your shoes and count on your toes if you have to.

Thanks Dave. I was hoping you'd do exactly what you just did, which is display how your ignorance of the science makes you such easy pickings for the scammers.

Here are numbers representing 16 different stations scattered across a wide area:

17 19 22 2 9 18 6 4 1 21 5 3 14 8 7 25 15 16 13 23 20 12 10 0 11

We have a low data point of 0 and a high data point of 25, with an average of 18.8.

Now let's do like climate "scientists" do and throw out the inconvenient data, choosing the warmest station to represent the entire area: The average suddenly becomes 25.

All of a sudden, the average temperature became over 6 degrees warmer. Note that the area itself didn't get any warmer -- but they sure do want you to think it did, don't they?

And thus Dave does his face plant into a cow patty.

Dave, notice how when average temperatures are calculated, they don't use an absolute temperature? For example, they might say May 2014 is +0.33C. That's the temperature anomaly.

And why do they use temperature anomaly instead of absolute temperature? Precisely so they _don't_ get the situation you just described.

If you use the anomaly, it doesn't matter if you drop out or add hotter or colder stations, as the average anomaly will be unaffected. And that's why the dropping out of those old stations had no effect on the temperature average. The anomaly average only changes if stations that were added or removed had a different trend. But since UHI is compensated for in the averages, the stations all trend together very closely.

Seriously, this is basic stuff. Since you didn't know it, it indicates you're not qualified to be sitting at the grownups' table. Back to the kiddie table with you, until you do more 'larnin.

If you use the anomaly, it doesn't matter if you drop out or add hotter or colder stations, as the average anomaly will be unaffected.

If the anomaly is the change from the average and you drop the colder stations, how does that not increase the anomaly?

Feel free to ask someone at the kiddie table if you need help.

Mammy doesn't know; just mindlessly repeating the programming.

 

[daveman]

No sir, they have not been living without food and water for centuries, much less for millenia, you friggin moron. That said, the fact that you apparently believe that kind of lifestyle to be the ultimate goal of modern civilization tells me everything I need to know about your level of intelligence (don't worry, we can all go live as camel herders in Utah if we have to). Congratulations.

Isn't that the goal of the green movement? Have the few remaining humans living close to nature? No artificial power sources?

You can live in a tent burning buffalo shit for heat if you want to. But don't be surprised if I laugh at you when you tell me I have to do the same.

Straw man argument. So, erm, no it is not. Next.

Well, considering you want to cripple the economies of the entire Western world, and that will be the result, yes, you do.

 

[daveman]

Since you are the one who is arguing that we will or have to ruin our economy in order to reduce emissions, perhaps you and westwall could consult Jean Dixon and maybe she could give us some inkling from her tea leaves exactly how that will happen.

$540 trillion: The global cost of climate change | Communities Digital News

In the heat of the 2013 elections, Australian Topher Field did a remarkable thing. He became the first person in the world to calculate the global cost of climate change.

Field uses universally accepted data sources. He assumes the IPCC’s conclusions are all correct. He scales up Australia’s carbon tax solution to apply it to the whole planet. Australia models its carbon tax plan on the United Nation’s proposed solution.

Topher Field calls his analysis the “50 to 1 Project” because he concludes in it that it costs 50 times more to prevent global warming than to adapt to its effects.

Field summarizes his findings in this highly entertaining, easy to understand and quite astounding 9-minute video:


Most astonishing is that Field’s calculations show that it would cost $540 trillion dollars to prevent a mere +0.17°C temperature rise by 2020. That is a mind-boggling 80 percent of global GDP.

Field points out that, according the 2006 Stern report on climate change economics, a +3°C global temperature rise would cost 0 to 3 percent of GDP in climate damage. Field assumes the Stern GDP mid-point increase, 1.5 percent, and concludes that it costs more than 50 times more to stop global warming than to adapt to it.​

What's your share gonna be? Or do you expect me to pay your share?


USA meets Kyoto protocol goal ? without ever embracing it | Watts Up With That?

New EIA data shows USA inadvertently meets 1997 Kyoto protocol CO2 emission reductions without ever signing on thanks to a stagnant economy. Lowest level of CO2 emissions since 1994.

In 2012, a surprising twist and without ever ratifying it, the United States became the first major industrialized nation in the world to meet the United Nation’s original Kyoto Protocol 2012 target for CO2 reductions.​

I guess you can give Obama credit for that, since he fucked up the economy.

HotWhopper: My advice to Topher Field - take the money and run!

Topher Field managed to fleece tens of thousands of dollars out of gullible and hopeful science deniers. Now he seems to be making the mistake of trying to defend his dumb video and the lies it contains.

If he had any sense he'd take the money and run, not stick around to be shown up for so grossly misrepresenting climate science and climate economics.



Topher Field made a comment on HotWhopper about my initial response to his utterly nutty Australian election video about quadrillions of dollar coins looping around Neptune and the sun. He implies he thinks he got it right. Topher wrote in part:

It's incredibly kind of you to dedicate so much time to trying to 'take me down',​

I replied, among other things:

I wrote the above article in a very short time. I don't care about you one way or another although I've formed an opinion about your political ideology, from this and other videos you've made, and your scientific and economic illiteracy. Your ideology explains your motivation for spreading disinformation, which speaks to your lack of ethics. But I'll grant you that you may merely be supremely ignorant. A veritable example of Dunning and Kruger. Or you could just be trying to make a crust and, like some people, are willing to sacrifice integrity in the process. Any or all of those could be the driving force or none of them. It doesn't matter. Therefore I'll skip the speculation as to what drove you to spend other people's money producing utter nuttery.​

What I'll address in a future article is the content of your video and that of Monckton's ridiculous pdf file that I gather you've used as the basis for your nonsense claims.​

Topher doesn't want to know what's wrong with his video or Monckton's mathurbations, saying"

Anyway, that's all from me, I've learned long ago not to argue with those who prefer to believe their own reality rather than the one in front of them.​

What a plonker! Does he really think his silly cartoon bears any resemblance to reality? While Topher takes my advice and runs, but back into the arms of the marks he conned, there may be other stray readers who'll venture here from a google search for "topher" or for "monckton". This might get them started on thinking critically about science and/or the economics of climate change. Or at least make them pause before deciding wannabee cartoon producers and potty peers know more about climate science and economics than specialists who've spent their lives researching those subjects.

So let's get going.

Because this post is very long, I've put in a break. Click here to open to the full article if you're on the home page.




Topher is wrong from the outset: there is no "IPCC central estimate" of 3º Celsius a century

In a comment, Topher wrote:

I clearly stated that I as accepting the IPCCs central AR4 estimate of 3deg per century warming, the using Stern to find out the cost of that 3 deg. I even gave the page number from Stern where I found the information in black and white.​

There are a number of things wrong with the above.

Firstly, IPCC's "central AR4 estimate" is not three degrees of warming "per century". If Topher is interested in the "per century" projections in the last IPCC report, he needs to read Chapter 10 of WG1. He also needs to take notice of the pathways on which the projections are based. They do not include the continued burning of fossil fuel advocated by Topher.

Which leads to the second point. The IPCC didn't conceive of a world that Topher and his backers want. The IPCC projections don't allow for the world being so dumb as to not reduce fossil fuel emissions at any time or at all. Therefore, since Topher's video advocates no attempt to reduce carbon emissions, he needs to look at projections higher than business as usual.

Topher wasn't sufficiently familiar with Stern to tell me the page number in his comment (see below). While he claims to have "found the information" it turns out it wasn't Topher who didn't find the information at all. It was Christopher Monckton of Brenchley.

What is so Dunning-Kruger about all this is that Topher thinks he can pick an item from a single page in the 662 page Stern report, combine it with a fake "3 degrees a century" (or 3 degrees a decade) and jump to the ludicrous conclusion that it will cost 80% of GDP to rein back fossil fuel emissions. What a nutter!

Not only that - but he appears to jump to to the even more ludicrous conclusion that people will readily "adapt" to a rise of three degrees each century. If his projection were true, in just over three hundred years the earth would be ten degrees above pre-industrial and much of the planet wouldn't just be uninhabitable, it would be un-enterable. There would be large areas of earth where no-one could go and expect to survive more than a few minutes or hours. They'd die from heat stress.



Science deniers adore a potty peer


Now for some false assumptions and flawed reasoning we'll turn to Monckton's silly "paper", which Topher says he used for "all 50 to 1 sources and maths"! (Refer archived Topher page here and Monckton's paper I've stored here.) To get some idea of the "quality" and intended audience, here is how Moncton presents his nuttery:

​

The crown at the top is to remind the adoring audience that Monckton is a peer, therefore his silliness has been "peer-reviewed" - by no other than Monckton himself. Some Americans and a few Australians still regard British peers as next to royalty (even if they've only had the "peerage" for a generation and those who bestowed it couldn't conceive of Lord Monckton senior having progeny like Monckton junior) and probably just an angel shy of godliness.



Monckton starts off badly, telling lies

Monckton starts off badly with this misrepresentation:

Fraction of world CO2 emissions abated: Over ten years, the tax, which its inventor, Professor Garnaut, said in 2013 had failed, cannot now abate more than 5% of predicted CO2 emissions. Australia emits 1.2% of world emissions (derived from Boden et al., 2010ab). The tax will thus abate 5% x 1.2% = 0.06% of world emissions.​

He provides no reference for Professor Garnaut saying that the carbon pricing scheme had failed so we'll take that as a no unless someone has a reference.

Monckton then claims that it "cannot now abate more than 5% of predicted CO2 emissions". More educated readers will be aware that the scheme is intended to reduce emissions by at least 5%, which is quite a different aim altogether. As stated here, the aim is relatively ambitious:

If Australia takes no action by 2020 our carbon pollution could be 20 per cent higher than in 2000, not 5 to 25 per cent lower as the Australian Government intends. The Australian Government's targets are equivalent to a reduction in every Australian's carbon footprint of nearly one third to one half.​

Whether it is sufficient to reduce Australia's emissions to 5% below those of 2000 is another matter. Monckton provides no evidence that Australia cannot do this.

Monckton then makes a magical leap to this ridiculous statement:

CO2 concentration abated: Without the tax, CO2 concentration after ten years would be 410 μatm (IPCC, 2007), up by 20 μatm on the 390 μatm (Conway & Tans, 2011) at the outset. With the tax, after ten years CO2 concentration would be 410 μatm less 0.06% of the 20 μatm growth: i.e. 409.988 μatm.​

Let's look at Monckton's over-riding assumption:- the only means of reducing CO2 emissions is via the carbon pricing scheme introduced in Australia. Nothing any other nation on earth can do will make the slightest bit of difference according to Monckton's logic, either through increasing emissions or decreasing emissions.

I'm also curious as to why Monckton uses μatm as the unit for CO2. I presume he is referring to the partial pressure of CO2 at sea level but he doesn't say that. In any case, most people use ppm (parts per million) or ppmv (parts per million by volume) when discussing CO2 concentrations, which applies to the atmosphere in the troposphere as a whole and is more relevant in this context to my way of thinking.

Finally, Monckton cites a paper: "Conway and Tans (2011), Recent trends in globally-averaged CO2 concentration". I can find no such paper. He links to this page on the NOAA website, which shows the recent global monthly mean CO2 and other data. The page provides no predictions or projections of CO2 emissions. It's showing past atmospheric CO2 concentrations. So we can only conclude that he made the numbers up out of thin air or by extrapolating of the current rise in emissions. But he doesn't say. So we don't know.



What about 730 μatm CO2-equivalent?


I'll skip the next few nonsensical bits and go to another of Monckton's false claims. Monckton claims the Garnaut Climate Change Review (2008) "talks of keeping greenhouse-gas rises to 730 μatm CO2-equivalent". This struck me as ludicrous. Nevertheless, I did a search of the Garnaut review and found only that the number "730" was written twice, and neither was in regard to "keeping greenhouse-gas rises to 730 μatm CO2-equivalent". So again, Monckton is making up stuff out of thin air.

No-one in their right mind would advocate 730 ppm CO2, which is what Monckton appears to be suggesting. In case you think I've misrepresented Monckton (on the basis that no-one could be that dumb), Monckton equates 730 μatm CO2-equivalent with "450 μatm above 280 μatm CO2". Monckton falsely claims that 730 μatm would "hold 21st-century warming .. to 2 Cº". In fact, world leaders decided that 450 ppm CO2, not 730 ppm, would be the number they would aim for so as to to "hold 21st century warming" to 2º Celsius.



No, Christopher(s) - Australia is not the only country in the world!

Monckton wanders off into various watts/square metre calculations to "prove" that a carbon price in Australia will make no difference to global warming and concludes that nothing will make a difference. He implies that even if the entire world were to take steps to reduce emissions it wouldn't make any difference or would be too costly.

What Monckton does next is truly fanciful. He compares Australia's investment in reducing carbon emissions with a global abatement of warming. Again as if Australia is the only nation to have an impact on warming. It's ridiculous. This is where he gets his quadrillion dollar coins from and where Topher gets his loopy loop around Uranus.

And Monckton does this for a ten year time horizon. He cons his readers into thinking firstly the IPCC has a projected temperature rise over a ten year period - which is patently ludicrous. Climate change happens over a longer time horizon than ten years. IPCC projections for different scenarios are longer term than ten years. Not only that but they stop short of projecting the sort of future than Monckton and Topher advocate, one in which the world goes overboard and burns more and more fossil fuel. Even the worst IPCC scenarios assume some level of action to reduce emissions.



How Monckton/Topher turns 3º Celsius a century into 3º Celsius a decade


As for Topher claiming that he provided the "page number" in the Stern review report for Monckton's mathturbations, the Monckton one-pager does reference page vi of the 662-page Stern report, but it has no relationship to Monckton's con. I went to page vi and found what is probably the most relevant paragraph and it's a long way from what Monckton writes. Compare this (my bold italics):

From Stern page vi:

Using the results from formal economic models, the Review estimates that if we don’t act, the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global GDP each year, now and forever. If a wider range of risks and impacts is taken into account, the estimates of damage could rise to 20% of GDP or more..​

In contrast, the costs of action – reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change – can be limited to around 1% of global GDP each year.​

So Stern found that if we keep pouring out CO2 with gay abandon, then the cost of not acting is equivalent to a loss of 5% of GDP now and forever. By contrast, the cost of acting could be limited to 1% of GDP - provided we act soon enough. Compare this to Monckton's nonsense:

The benefit: Stern (2006, p. vi), estimates that the avoided-cost benefit of abating the 3 Cº 21st-century warming expected by the IPCC will be 0-3% of 21st-century global GDP. Since warming of 0.14 Cº/decade observed in the 23 years since 1990 (HadCRUt3gl, 2011) is less than half the IPCC’s 3 Cº/decade central estimate, a fair avoided-cost benefit is 1.5% of GDP.​

What rubbish. Monckton decides to take no notice of the Stern review when it comes to the cost of taking no action, and ignore what the climate models do project and then decides to fake some numbers. He takes a number from the outdated HadCRUT3, using a cherry picked start date, suddenly decides that the IPCC is predicting "3 Cº/decade" rather than what he earlier claimed, 3º Celsius a century and then makes up a number faking that it bears any relation to what is written in the Stern review.

Monckton has no shame while Topher Field probably doesn't have the wit or education to check anything Monckton wrote (nor to understand it).



Where did Monckton find his 80%?


The real idiocy is in Monckton's 80% vs 1.5% fallacy. Do you want to know how he derived his 80%? Here he abandons any pretence at agreeing with the Stern review and throws all reason out the window. What Monckton does is pick the smallest number he thinks he can get away with, divides it by an equally meaningless largest number he thinks he can get away with, and pulls his rabbit out of the hat.

Monckton has previously fudged 0.00005 degrees Celsius by attempting to work out what difference a 5% reduction in Australia's CO2 emissions would make in the world. He then decides that any attempt to reduce emissions would require the ten times the annual budget for Australia's entire climate change and energy efficiency portfolio as at 2010-11, without of course allowing for any benefits accruing to the economy. Then he fudges what he calls an "avoided cost benefit" by again ignoring the Stern review he previously favoured, and misrepresenting his mathturbations as being consistent with the IPCC.

Monckton's numbers make no sense whatsoever. It's a transparent attempt to con people who are as dumb as Topher and his audience (assuming Topher really is that dumb and doesn't have a clue what he's saying in his video, which is hardly credible).

You'll recall Monckton does this sort of thing often. For example in relation to Cook et al, Monckton keeps insisting that 3,896 is not 97.1% of 4014. He insists till he's blue in the face that 3896 divided by 4014 equals only 0.003. How he manages to persuade himself of this nonsense I cannot even guess. All I can say is that he's obviously a real clod when it comes to numbers.



Take the money and run, Topher Field


I suggest that Topher shut up, take the money and run as far from his silly cartoon as he can, knowing that in some circles at least, any reputation he might have had for integrity is forever tainted.

If anyone has anything to add, or wants to correct anything I've written, go for it. I'm quite prepared for the fact that I've not interpreted things properly. But one thing's for sure, neither Topher Field or Monckton has interpreted things properly!



Monckton idiocy debunked

These days few people who've ever heard of Christopher Monckton of Brenchley pay him any mind. I only do so because HotWhopper is devoted to demolishing disinformation.

Collin Maessen has done a grand job of debunking Monckton and made a video of it. I heartily recommend it.

So has John Abraham, who also went into great detail.

And so has SkepticalScience.com.

Barry Bickmore has been quite merciless in his take downs of the clown. He's even developed the Bickmore's Laws of Monckton.

The above are more fact-based and devoid of rhetoric, unlike HotWhopper. I tend to snark and ridicule as well as debunking his idiocy. After all, as Watching the Deniers points out, when even Andrew Bolt has had enough of Monckton...

Nice mindless cut and paste. That guy's a real whiner, isn't he?

So, let's see some numbers. What's it gonna cost to save the human race?

 

[daveman]

Thanks Dave. I was hoping you'd do exactly what you just did, which is display how your ignorance of the science makes you such easy pickings for the scammers.

And thus Dave does his face plant into a cow patty.

Dave, notice how when average temperatures are calculated, they don't use an absolute temperature? For example, they might say May 2014 is +0.33C. That's the temperature anomaly.

And why do they use temperature anomaly instead of absolute temperature? Precisely so they _don't_ get the situation you just described.

If you use the anomaly, it doesn't matter if you drop out or add hotter or colder stations, as the average anomaly will be unaffected. And that's why the dropping out of those old stations had no effect on the temperature average. The anomaly average only changes if stations that were added or removed had a different trend. But since UHI is compensated for in the averages, the stations all trend together very closely.

Seriously, this is basic stuff. Since you didn't know it, it indicates you're not qualified to be sitting at the grownups' table. Back to the kiddie table with you, until you do more 'larnin.

Learning is precisely the LAST thing you want me to do. No, you want me to join you in your immediate, unquestioning, and unthinking acceptance of your cult's dogma.

Go peddle your bullshit elsewhere.

Actually, it appears that learning is something that you are incapable of doing. I hate that for you.

Oh, I'm quite capable of learning. I'd have to turn off that capability with brain trauma in order to "learn" AGW cult dogma.

 

[daveman]

The argument that we can't reduce our emissions because of something China and India are or may do is specious at best, and is a great example of poor leadership.

Speaking of poor leadership, Obama wants to damage our economy in order to make a tiny reduction in US CO2 emissions.
A tiny, damaging reduction that will be overwhelmed by the increase in India's and China's CO2.
Would you recommend he reduce our GDP by 2%, 5% or more, for this pointless gesture?

A 20% reduction is more than a "tiny" reduction. It could be more, but is, in fact, a reasonable amount considering all the opposition. And it isn't like corporations in this country didn't know it was coming. It isn't as if many of them aren't trying to find solutions. China is well aware of their emissions, and has pledged to do something about them. You didn't know this? Huh. Explain how increasing competition in the energy sector will result in a REDUCTION in our GDP?

A 20% reduction is more than a "tiny" reduction.

That magical reduction will leave world PPM at what level, compared to what level?

China is well aware of their emissions, and has pledged to do something about them.

Oh, as long as they pledged to do something, I guess it's worth it to tank our economy then.

Explain how increasing competition in the energy sector will result in a REDUCTION in our GDP?

You'll have to explain how adding capacity that is more expensive and less reliable is increasing competition.

Oh, right, the government will force us to pay for this capacity and buy the unreliable, more expensive output. You don't understand how that hurts GDP?

If you need me to, I could try to explain some Econ 101 to you.

Progressives' understanding of economics starts and ends at "Tax the rich!!"

 

[daveman]

If the anomaly is the change from the average and you drop the colder stations, how does that not increase the anomaly?

A fair question, and since the answer isn't obvious, I'll go deeper into it.

Imagine a two-station setup. There's a cool station that starts out at a baseline of 10.0C, averaged from many previous decades, and a warm station that has a baseline of 15.0C.

Say both stations start changing at around +0.02C per year. So, after ten years, the warm station would be at 15.2C, the cool station at 10.2C. Both would show a total anomaly of +0.2C. Average the anomalies together, and the average anomaly is also +0.2C.

Now, remove the cool station from the mix, and the average anomaly is _still_ +0.2C. Same if you remove the warm station. Because you're using anomalies, the baseline temp doesn't matter. Only the trend matters.

Now, if stations that had _trended_ cooler (or less warm) were removed, that would bias the results towards warm. But that didn't happen. The abandoned stations actually trended a bit warmer, so removing them actually introdued a small cooling bias. Not enough to be statistically significant, but enough to kill the conspiracy theory dead.

Incorrect. The abandoned stations were cooler, or showed no warming.

What the Russian papers say | What the Russian papers say | RIA Novosti

Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.
The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory.
Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country's territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports.
Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.
The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.
The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.
On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.
IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.​

http://www.globalclimatescam.com/2010/01/scientists-using-selective-temperature-data-skeptics-say/

In the 1970s, nearly 600 Canadian weather stations fed surface temperature readings into a global database assembled by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Today, NOAA only collects data from 35 stations across Canada.

Worse, only one station — at Eureka on Ellesmere Island — is now used by NOAA as a temperature gauge for all Canadian territory above the Arctic Circle.

The Canadian government, meanwhile, operates 1,400 surface weather stations across the country, and more than 100 above the Arctic Circle, according to Environment Canada.

Yet as American researchers Joseph D’Aleo, a meteorologist, and E. Michael Smith, a computer programmer, point out in a study published on the website of the Science and Public Policy Institute, NOAA uses “just one thermometer [for measuring] everything north of latitude 65 degrees.”​

They're cherry-picking warmer stations. This is undeniable.

 

[Kosh]

Suck on my tailpipe, you twerp.

More proof that the AGW cult is promoting a lie based on their religious beliefs and not based on any science.

Non-sequitur. Atheists, such as myself, don't have any religious beliefs. But thanks for proving my point.

Once again the AGW cult tries to prove that they are not religious or a cult by trying call themselves atheists..

Once again AGW is a religion not based on any real science so for anyone to promote AGW they must believe in the religious teachings.

Atheism is the belief that there is no god. According to the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

“Atheism is the position that affirms the non-existence of God. It proposes positive disbelief rather than mere suspension of belief.”

Thus proving my point about the AGW cult.

Oh well another AGW cult member proven wrong with real science.

 

[daveman]

Frank, you're sounding shrill and desperate now.

As the temperatures keep climbing, your cult's conspiracy theories will keep looking dumber and dumber. The longer you cling to them, the more painful it will be to finally drop them. The smarter rats will be leaving the ship before it sinks. You? You'll probably go down with it.

Except there has been no temperatures climbing.

The Period Of No Global Warming Will Soon Be Longer Than the Period of Actual Global Warming - Forbes

 

[RollingThunder]

Frank, you're sounding shrill and desperate now.

As the temperatures keep climbing, your cult's conspiracy theories will keep looking dumber and dumber. The longer you cling to them, the more painful it will be to finally drop them. The smarter rats will be leaving the ship before it sinks. You? You'll probably go down with it.

Except there has been no temperatures climbing.

The Period Of No Global Warming Will Soon Be Longer Than the Period of Actual Global Warming - Forbes

LOLOLOLOL.....hilarious....another lawyer for the Heartland Institute, a fossil fuel industry propaganda front group....who you trust more than the tens of thousands of actual climate scientists.....his article amounts to just more braindead denial of reality...

In the real world....

Global warming since 1997 more than twice as fast as previously estimated, new study shows
13 November 2013

Apparent pause in global warming blamed on 'lousy' data
European Space Agency scientist says annual sea level rises since 1993 indicate that warming has continued unabated
13 June 2014

Global warming is unpaused and stuck on fast forward, new research shows
10 December 2013

Global warming continues with no slow down

March 27, 2013

Global Warming Is Rapidly Accelerating
12/31/2013

New Research Confirms Global Warming Has Accelerated
25 March 2013

Global Warming is Accelerating, but it's Still Groundhog Day at the Daily Mail
17 April 2013

In Hot Water: Global Warming Has Accelerated In Past 15 Years, New Study Of Oceans Confirms
MARCH 25, 2013

UN: GLOBAL WARMING IS ACCELERATING, AND WITH DISASTROUS CONSEQUENCES
July 3, 2013

Accelerated Warming Driving Arctic Into New Volatile State
December 5th, 2012

New Research Confirms Global Warming/Ocean Acidification Accelerating Faster Than Previously Thought
MAR 27, 2013

Global Warming Accelerating, Say Scientists
ABC News Video

GLOBALLY.....

* Sixteen years ago 1998 became the hottest year on record by a considerable margin.

* Currently 2010 is tied with 2005 as the hottest year on record, in records going back to the 1800s.

* 2013 was the fourth hottest year on record.

* The last decade was the hottest decade on record, as was the decade before that and the decade before that, in turn.

* All of the hottest years on record have occurred since 1998.

* The coldest years since 1998 are still hotter than all of the hottest years before 1998.

* This last November 2013 was the hottest November on record globally.

* This last April 2014 was the hottest April on record globally.

* This last April was the 350th consecutive month with global average temperatures higher than the average temperature for that month, averaged over the entire twentieth century.

* The Arctic ice cap is still rapidly melting away.

* Large areas northern permafrost are still rapidly melting.

* Greenland and Antarctica are still losing ice mass at increasing rates.

* The large majority of mountain glaciers are still rapidly melting and disappearing.

* Sea levels are still rising at an accelerating rate.

GLOBALLY....this is the actual temperature record.....

Global temperature (annual values) in the data from NASA GISS (orange) and from Cowtan & Way (blue), i.e. HadCRUT4 with interpolated data gaps.
One can clearly see the extreme year 1998, which (thanks to the record-El Niño) stands out above the long-term trend like no other year. But even taking this outlier year as starting point, the linear trend 1998-2013 in all four data sets is positive. Also clearly visible is 2010 as the warmest year since records began, and the minima in the years 2008 and 2011/2012. But just like the peaks are getting higher, these minima are less and less deep.
(source: RealClimate)

 

[daveman]

You complain about the Heartland Institute, then post links from the Guardian and DailyKOS?

How is it you don't agree that all you deserve is mockery and derision?

 

[RollingThunder]

You complain about the Heartland Institute, then post links from the Guardian and DailyKOS?

How is it you don't agree that all you deserve is mockery and derision?

Of course. The Heartland Institute is a propaganda outlet with close financial ties to the fossil fuel industry. They have very little scientific support.

The Guardian is a newspaper and their articles that I've cited have all been reporting on real peer reviewed science that was published in reputable international science journals, or they are quoting one of the leading climate scientists.

You only bring "mockery and derision" down on yourself with ignorant and clueless posts like this one.

Examples...

Global warming since 1997 more than twice as fast as previously estimated, new study shows
13 November 2013
A new paper published in The Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society fills in the gaps in the UK Met Office HadCRUT4 surface temperature data set, and finds that the global surface warming since 1997 has happened more than twice as fast as the HadCRUT4 estimate.

Apparent pause in global warming blamed on 'lousy' data
European Space Agency scientist says annual sea level rises since 1993 indicate that warming has continued unabated
13 June 2014
Stephen Briggs from the European Space Agency's Directorate of Earth Observation says that surface air temperature data is the worst indicator of global climate that can be used, describing it as "lousy". "It is like looking at the last hair on the tail of a dog and trying to decide what breed it is," he said on Friday at the Royal Society in London. A better measure, he said, was to look at the average rise in sea levels. The oceans store the vast majority of the climate's heat energy. Increases in this stored energy translate into sea level rises. "Sea level is a very good integrator of different indicators of climate change," said Briggs.

Global warming is unpaused and stuck on fast forward, new research shows
A new paper shows that global warming has continued over the past decade, and been manifested in different ways
10 December 2013
New research by Kevin Trenberth and John Fasullo of the National Center for Atmospheric Research [published in the American Geophysical Union's environmental science journal - 'Earth's Future'] investigates how the warming of the Earth's climate has behaved over the past 15 years compared with the previous few decades.

 

[Kosh]

You complain about the Heartland Institute, then post links from the Guardian and DailyKOS?

How is it you don't agree that all you deserve is mockery and derision?

Many members of the AGW cult are also far left Obama drones.

They deserved to be mocked for just being far left much less anything else.

 

[daveman]

You complain about the Heartland Institute, then post links from the Guardian and DailyKOS?

How is it you don't agree that all you deserve is mockery and derision?

Of course. The Heartland Institute is a propaganda outlet with close financial ties to the fossil fuel industry. They have very little scientific support.

The Guardian is a newspaper and their articles that I've cited have all been reporting on real peer reviewed science that was published in reputable international science journals, or they are quoting one of the leading climate scientists.

You only bring "mockery and derision" down on yourself with ignorant and clueless posts like this one.

Examples...

Global warming since 1997 more than twice as fast as previously estimated, new study shows
13 November 2013
A new paper published in The Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society fills in the gaps in the UK Met Office HadCRUT4 surface temperature data set, and finds that the global surface warming since 1997 has happened more than twice as fast as the HadCRUT4 estimate.

Apparent pause in global warming blamed on 'lousy' data
European Space Agency scientist says annual sea level rises since 1993 indicate that warming has continued unabated
13 June 2014
Stephen Briggs from the European Space Agency's Directorate of Earth Observation says that surface air temperature data is the worst indicator of global climate that can be used, describing it as "lousy". "It is like looking at the last hair on the tail of a dog and trying to decide what breed it is," he said on Friday at the Royal Society in London. A better measure, he said, was to look at the average rise in sea levels. The oceans store the vast majority of the climate's heat energy. Increases in this stored energy translate into sea level rises. "Sea level is a very good integrator of different indicators of climate change," said Briggs.

Global warming is unpaused and stuck on fast forward, new research shows
A new paper shows that global warming has continued over the past decade, and been manifested in different ways
10 December 2013
New research by Kevin Trenberth and John Fasullo of the National Center for Atmospheric Research [published in the American Geophysical Union's environmental science journal - 'Earth's Future'] investigates how the warming of the Earth's climate has behaved over the past 15 years compared with the previous few decades.

The Guardian is the British National Enquirer. Dismissed.

 

[daveman]

You complain about the Heartland Institute, then post links from the Guardian and DailyKOS?

How is it you don't agree that all you deserve is mockery and derision?

Many members of the AGW cult are also far left Obama drones.

They deserved to be mocked for just being far left much less anything else.

Progressives' childish insistence their fantasies are real would be charming if they weren't fucking up the country.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Tell me you can't see Rolling Thunder yelling "AGW AKBAR!!!!" and blowing himself up taking "Deniers" with him