US scientists: Global warming pause 'no longer valid'

[Billy_Bob]

AS expected the gullible warming clowns are circling their wagons and repeating the lies over and over again..

 

[skookerasbil]

Anyone reading this thread needs to read the ENTIRE article. The AGW k00ks are hoping you don't read the last couple of paragraphs!!!( or.......just see the bottom of Page one of this thread......all you have to know!!!)

These global warming nutters are ALL frauds.


But don't take my word for it.......read the entire article posted by the OP and decide for yourself!!

 

[Old Rocks]

Hahahaha. ARGO shows almost no warming (admittedly only from 2004) and satellites show less than no warming for the range of Karl's paper. Yet we are being told there has been warming.

Can you spell reanalysis? I knew you could.

Copying claims from a Monckton article on WUWT is really scraping bottom.

Anyone that uses Monckton for evidence is, indeed, scraping the bottom of the barrel. A fraud in his claims to British Lordship, a fraud in everything else. So naturally our deniars gravitate to him. Birds of a feather.

 

[Old Rocks]

Anyone reading this thread needs to read the ENTIRE article. The AGW k00ks are hoping you don't read the last couple of paragraphs!!!( or.......just see the bottom of Page one of this thread......all you have to know!!!)

These global warming nutters are ALL frauds.


But don't take my word for it.......read the entire article posted by the OP and decide for yourself!!

US scientists Global warming pause no longer valid - BBC News

IPCC
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), global average temperatures have increased by around 0.05C per decade in the period between 1998 and 2012.

This compares with an average of 0.12 per decade between 1951 and 2012.

The new analysis suggests a figure of 0.116 per decade for 2000-2014, compared with 0.113 for 1950-1999.

"The IPCC's statement of two years ago - that the global surface temperature 'has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than over the past 30 to 60 years' - is no longer valid," said Dr Karl, the director of Noaa's National Climatic Data Center.

OK, there are the that last few paragraphs.

 

[skookerasbil]

from the OP's posted article >>>

"John Christy, the University of Alabama-Huntsville climate scientist who has constructed and studied temperature records of the lower atmosphere using satellite data, says atmospheric data do not exhibit the short term warming seen in Karl’s analysis."

f'ing duh

 

[Zander]

These NOAA assholes massage the numbers and cook the books, then wonder why nobody takes them seriously........

 

[Old Rocks]

from the OP's posted article >>>

"John Christy, the University of Alabama-Huntsville climate scientist who has constructed and studied temperature records of the lower atmosphere using satellite data, says atmospheric data do not exhibit the short term warming seen in Karl’s analysis."

f'ing duh

I do not see that in the posted article. Care to post where that came from?

 

[skookerasbil]

The strategy of the AGW religion is to put all the established narrative crap out there and blitz you with the psy-op ( see BBC) and hope you only read the headline. Many zombies do just that. Its a clever strategy. Progressives do it ALL THE TIME!!!


Its like the New York Times burying an article about deep corruption by a Democrat on page 39!! Here, they bury an alternative finding waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay the fuck at the end of the article.


Very clever............and very effective if you are targeting the zombies.

 

[Old Rocks]

These NOAA assholes massage the numbers and cook the books, then wonder why nobody takes them seriously........

And you have done the research to demonstrate that? Links? I thought not, just an asshole with an unsupported opinion, and a load of willful ignorance.

 

[skookerasbil]

from the OP's posted article >>>

"John Christy, the University of Alabama-Huntsville climate scientist who has constructed and studied temperature records of the lower atmosphere using satellite data, says atmospheric data do not exhibit the short term warming seen in Karl’s analysis."

f'ing duh

I do not see that in the posted article. Care to post where that came from?

LOL..........Ray......because that paragraph has since been removed from the article!!! Just went back to check it and the thing has been edited...........half the article has been removed from the piece.

HOLY MOTHER OF GOD.


Just more fodder that this shit is rigged!!!

 

[Old Rocks]

Or, perhaps, they did not consider Christy to be that relevant anymore.

 

[Zander]

nobody gives a fuck about this hoax anyway....

Climate FAIL Gallup poll shows global warming concerns dead last Watts Up With That
Climate Change Not a Top Worry in U.S.
Poll America s Fear Of Global Warming Drops To 1980s Levels The Daily Caller
Americans Show Low Levels of Concern on Global Warming
Americans List Climate Change As One Of Their Lowest Priorities

 

[mamooth]

Poor Zander. He won't even try to talk about the science. Probably for the best. And poor skook is too overwhelmed with teh gheyness to make any sense.

Deniers, being desperate, are making their final retreat to the satellite data. Which is known to have problems, the biggest being it's measuring temperature at 14,000 feet, not the surface. A logical person, when talking about the earth's surface temperature, would use measured surface temperatures. But these are deniers, and logic is like poison to them. When they talk about surface temperatures, they deliberately ignore the directly measured surface temperatures, and instead use the highly twiddled satellite measurements of the upper troposphere.

For the rather long and technical discussions on why it's very ghey to use satellite data ...

Is there a pause in the temperature of the lower troposphere Climate Lab Book

Comparing Temperature Data Sets Open Mind

Sharper Focus Open Mind

RealClimate Et Tu LT

A quick summary of all that is that the satellites over-measure the effects of El Nino and volcanoes. When that's compensated for, the satellite data looks very much like the surface data.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Look for the republican congress to defund these science programs. This was a really dumb move. We're not going to be able to reason with them about how they save lives or add innovation to our society.

It isn't worth it politically. As a lover of the noaa and nasa it makes me sick.

 

[westwall]

Poor Zander. He won't even try to talk about the science. Probably for the best. And poor skook is too overwhelmed with teh gheyness to make any sense.

Deniers, being desperate, are making their final retreat to the satellite data. Which is known to have problems, the biggest being it's measuring temperature at 14,000 feet, not the surface. A logical person, when talking about the earth's surface temperature, would use measured surface temperatures. But these are deniers, and logic is like poison to them. When they talk about surface temperatures, they deliberately ignore the directly measured surface temperatures, and instead use the highly twiddled satellite measurements of the upper troposphere.

For the rather long and technical discussions on why it's very ghey to use satellite data ...

Is there a pause in the temperature of the lower troposphere Climate Lab Book

Comparing Temperature Data Sets Open Mind

Sharper Focus Open Mind

RealClimate Et Tu LT

A quick summary of all that is that the satellites over-measure the effects of El Nino and volcanoes. When that's compensated for, the satellite data looks very much like the surface data.

What science? Climatology today is science fiction but precious little science.

 

[skookerasbil]

Or, perhaps, they did not consider Christy to be that relevant anymore.

Nah.....that's pretty fucked up. Posting up an article and then after several million people read it, it gets edited and what is edited out is atmospheric data that doesn't conform with Karls data. Fucking gay..........so cheesy. So deceitful.

Of course, to those at the BBC, its perfectly legit because to them, the ends justify the means if it is a progressive cause. Weak.

 

[mamooth]

What science? Climatology today is science fiction but precious little science.

Please stick to the topic. Do you think it's sensible to determine global average surface temperature by ignoring all the actual surface temperature measurements, and instead using very dubious measurements of the temperature at 14,000 feet?

If you have specific problems with the Karl15 paper, I suggest you do some science. It would be a new approach for the deniers here, a break from their constant snide remarks, political rants and conspiracy theories. Write up your critique, show your analysis, and submit it to the journal for a healthy scientific debate. Not specifically you, anybody on your side. The world awaits your brilliance.

 

[ScienceRocks]

What science? Climatology today is science fiction but precious little science.

Please stick to the topic. Do you think it's sensible to determine global average surface temperature by ignoring all the actual surface temperature measurements, and instead using very dubious measurements of the temperature at 14,000 feet?

If you have specific problems with the Karl15 paper, I suggest you do some science. It would be a new approach for the deniers here, a break from their constant snide remarks, political rants and conspiracy theories. Write up your critique, show your analysis, and submit it to the journal for a healthy scientific debate. Not specifically you, anybody on your side. The world awaits your brilliance.

Where did Karl find the extra warmth this past decade?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Never mind that Karl Et Al defies the laws of thermal dynamics.. A first year physics student can debunk this pile of crap.

 

[mamooth]

And now Billy is parroting Monckton's stupid WUWT article.

I took the hit and read it, so others don't have to. It was raving nonsense that jumped senselessly between stupidity and outright fraud. Classic Monckton, not worth anyone's time. But boy howdy, do the WUWT kooks love it.