Uah Is The Only Data Set That Shows Any Warming The Past 15 Years.

[ScienceRocks]

UAH is the ONLY data set that shows any warming over the past 15 years...2001-2014 = .1c! You can't do the same with the Giss or Noaa. They show NO warming at all.

 

[Politico]

That should tell you something.

 

[Crick]

This tells me you denier folks have no problem with cherry picking and half-truths as long as they supports your agenda.

 

[Crick]

And in case you were considering the usual reply, here is what it looks like if you REMOVE the ARGO float data:

The ARGO data makes it worse (hotter)

 

[Crick]

Or the other:

From BTK's Distinctive Signals...

"ORAS4 has been produced by combining, every 10 days, the output of an ocean model forced by atmospheric reanalysis fluxes and quality controlled ocean observations.***** These consist of temperature and salinity (T/S) profiles from the Hadley Centre's EN3 data collection [Ingleby and Huddleston, 2007], which include expendable bathythermographs (T only, with depth corrections from Table 1 of Wijffels et al. [2008]), conductivity-temperature-depth sensors (T/S), TAO/TRITON/PIRATA/RAMA moorings (T/S), Argo profilers (T/S), and autonomous pinniped bathythermograph (or elephant seals, T/S). Altimeter-derived along track sea level anomalies from AVISO are also assimilated. Gridded maps of SST from NOAA are used to adjust the heat fluxes via strong relaxation, and altimeter global mean sea-levels are used to constrain the global average of the fresh-water flux. The ocean model horizontal resolution is approximately 1°, refined meridionally down to 1/3° at the equator. There are 42 vertical levels with separations varying smoothly from 10 m at the surface to 300 m at the bottom, with partial cell topography."

***** - That is, every ten days those graphs are reset to EMPIRICAL DATA. In the span of those graphs there are over 1700 sets of all the various, EMPIRICAL data listed above. So please don't try to tell me "it's just a model".

 

[toxicmedia]

This tells me you denier folks have no problem with cherry picking and half-truths as long as they supports your agenda.

But they have a chart.

Charts are always right, especially when they are created by an organization that has an acronym, and the stuff looks all technical.

The absence of 100% proof without any contradictory evidence is proof that something isn't proven.

Sheeeez.

 

[Crick]

BTK, stands for Balmaseda, Trenberth and Kallen, the authors of the study published in Geophysical Review Letters.

If you're having difficulty understanding what the chart shows, I could explain it to you. Or you could go to the linked study and read all about it.

 

[Old Rocks]

There is no 100% proof in science. You cannot prove that there is no possibility that the sun will rise in the west tomorrow. You can say that for all of known time that the sun has risen in the east, and that the probability of it rising in the west is really very small.

 

[toxicmedia]

BTK, stands for Balmaseda, Trenberth and Kallen, the authors of the study published in Geophysical Review Letters.

If you're having difficulty understanding what the chart shows, I could explain it to you. Or you could go to the linked study and read all about it.

Wow...really?......I guess I need to use more :rolling eyes: emoticons. Sarcasm can be so unrecognizable without them.

 

[Crick]

I'd say "nice try", but it wasn't. The failure to recognize BTK - at least in this forum - was just ignorance on your part. As to recognizing sarcasm; you're the one who commented that the BTK graphic looked "all technical".

 

[toxicmedia]

I'd say "nice try", but it wasn't. The failure to recognize BTK - at least in this forum - was just ignorance on your part. As to recognizing sarcasm; you're the one who commented that the BTK graphic looked "all technical".

You're serious?...(sigh).....alright, let me explain.

Many people involved in the global warming/climate change debate don't scrutinize, or even understand the data trends illustrated on charts and/or graphs they see regarding the subject. Yet they are emotionally invested in the conclusions they draw from them

Did you ever see "Anchorman"? I love the opening scene where the narrator talks about an era where everybody believed that everything they saw on TV was true. That's the type of critical reasoning I was jabbing at.

I was going for irony, and maybe some levity too...but now it's just a joke that I had to explain.

My interruption is over

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Show us in a lab how much of a temperature increase is attributable to a 120PPM increase in CO2

 

[Billy_Bob]

BTK, stands for Balmaseda, Trenberth and Kallen, the authors of the study published in Geophysical Review Letters.

If you're having difficulty understanding what the chart shows, I could explain it to you. Or you could go to the linked study and read all about it.

The three stooges and liars... I'm surprised MANN isn't involved. Trenbreth is the warming king of data manipulation only second to Mann.

This study was shredded because of it use of a MODEL to create the output for their graph. How many dam times I got to tell you that MODELS ARE NOT EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE!

You alarmist morons keep citing models as if they were somehow empirical evidence of something. Lets review how successful your models are. shall we? 100% failure.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Show us in a lab how much of a temperature increase is attributable to a 120PPM increase in CO2

I can show that with earths open atmosphere that 120ppm has had ZERO warming attribution when natural variation is applied. Which leaves ZERO warming from CO2 over the last 114 years.

And I have already posted it on this site multiple times...

 

[Crick]

No you haven't.