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.
IanC said:Should I have asked you to spell Trenberth's name too?
Trenberth? Why bring him up?
Oh, I get it, you're talking about that denier myth. Those in the denier fantasy bubble will even deny that the surface temperatures have always showed steady warming. Instead, in denier mythology, there's a story of a pause, and then a story of how one devlish man, Trenberth, explained away the pause. However, nobody outside the cult cares about such fairy tales.
Funny how Trenberth manage to rearrange the ocean data and it suddenly fit sooooooo much better. Volcanic signals that weren't there before just magically appeared. Since he got away with it so easily one of his buddies thought he might just take a crack at it. A little selective adjusting and... Voila! A somewhat plausible excuse for the Pause. At least for now.
Funny how nobody cares about your endless conspiracy theories. Which you'll claim are not conspiracy theories. The whole world is faking data, but that isn't a conspiracy theory.
Just like the Colorado sea level records. When SLR levels dropped they went offline for a couple of months and came back with a new (higher ) dataset and a shiny new adjustment for GIA.
I'm sure that conspiracy theory draws rave reviews in Denierstan, but again, nobody else cares.
How many of these public relations disasters will have to be fixed before the whole thing collapses?
Hate to break it to you, but it's already collapsed on you. Your side was caught faking everything too many times. Hence, you're ignored now.
I must admit I should have been able predict this. I just didn't think they had the gall to try it after all the bad publicity lately over homogenization and such.
You're not ignored because of a global socialist plot. You're ignored for the same reason moon landing hoaxers are ignored. Enjoy your future of being even more savagely ignored.
The skeptics' side is getting more and more traction. Lower climate sensitivity is acknowledged. Only five years ago warmers were still proclaiming that GW was accelerating, now they are scrambling to explain the Pause.
Expect the backtracking to continue.
The skeptics' side is getting more and more traction. Lower climate sensitivity is acknowledged. Only five years ago warmers were still proclaiming that GW was accelerating, now they are scrambling to explain the Pause.
Expect the backtracking to continue.
Actually, I expect the propaganda to get even more shrill and constant. The warmers realize their easy gravy train is falling apart so they are going to fight tooth and nail to try and save it. Expect things to get much, much, worse.
Ah yes, PROJECTION, thy name is mammy! The facts are the AGW supporters are the only ones who have access to the raw data. They will not share it with anyone thus,
So much for the denier arguments.
US scientists Global warming pause no longer valid - BBC News
A US government laboratory says the much talked about "pause" is an illusion caused by inaccurate data.
Updated observations show temperatures did not plateau, say National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) scientists.
The warming rate over the past 15 years is "virtually identical" to the last century, they report in Science.
Dr Thomas Karl of NOAA, who led the new analysis, said: "We would hope that it would inform the general public that the temperature today really is continuing to warm."
Getting ever more desperate, Zander now resorts to faking magazine covers.
TIME Magazine Cover Warning of Coming Ice Age Is a Fake TIME.com
He'll post the fake again, of course, even knowing full well it's a fake. The only guiding moral principle deniers have is "The ends always justify the means for my side." If any big lie pushes their cause, they love that big lie.
Like this one: ftp://140.90.235.82/nodc/web/woa.data.nodc/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat08.pdf
Or this one: World ocean heat content and thermosteric sea level change 0 2000 m 1955 2010 - Levitus - 2012 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library
or this one concerning adjustments to XBT fall-rate equations: Reevaluation of historical ocean heat content variations with time-varying XBT and MBT depth bias corrections - Springer
Abstract
As reported in former studies, temperature observations obtained by expendable bathythermographs (XBTs) and mechanical bathythermographs (MBTs) appear to have positive biases as much as they affect major climate signals. These biases have not been fully taken into account in previous ocean temperature analyses, which have been widely used to detect global warming signals in the oceans. This report proposes a methodology for directly eliminating the biases from the XBT and MBT observations. In the case of XBT observation, assuming that the positive temperature biases mainly originate from greater depths given by conventional XBT fall-rate equations than the truth, a depth bias equation is constructed by fitting depth differences between XBT data and more accurate oceanographic observations to a linear equation of elapsed time. Such depth bias equations are introduced separately for each year and for each probe type. Uncertainty in the gradient of the linear equation is evaluated using a non-parametric test. The typical depth bias is +10 m at 700 m depth on average, which is probably caused by various indeterminable sources of error in the XBT observations as well as a lack of representativeness in the fall-rate equations adopted so far. Depth biases in MBT are fitted to quadratic equations of depth in a similar manner to the XBT method. Correcting the historical XBT and MBT depth biases by these equations allows a historical ocean temperature analysis to be conducted. In comparison with the previous temperature analysis, large differences are found in the present analysis as follows: the duration of large ocean heat content in the 1970s shortens dramatically, and recent ocean cooling becomes insignificant. The result is also in better agreement with tide gauge observations.
Or this one: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
Abstract
Two significant instrument biases have been identified in the in situ profile data used to estimate globally integrated upper-ocean heat content. A large cold bias was discovered in a small fraction of Argo floats along with a smaller but more prevalent warm bias in expendable bathythermograph (XBT) data. These biases appear to have caused the bulk of the upper-ocean cooling signal reported by Lyman et al. between 2003 and 2005. These systematic data errors are significantly larger than sampling errors in recent years and are the dominant sources of error in recent estimates of globally integrated upper-ocean heat content variability. The bias in the XBT data is found to be consistent with errors in the fall-rate equations, suggesting a physical explanation for that bias. With biased profiles discarded, no significant warming or cooling is observed in upper-ocean heat content between 2003 and 2006.
Getting ever more desperate, Zander now resorts to faking magazine covers.
TIME Magazine Cover Warning of Coming Ice Age Is a Fake TIME.com
He'll post the fake again, of course, even knowing full well it's a fake. The only guiding moral principle deniers have is "The ends always justify the means for my side." If any big lie pushes their cause, they love that big lie.
Getting ever more desperate, Zander now resorts to faking magazine covers.
TIME Magazine Cover Warning of Coming Ice Age Is a Fake TIME.com
He'll post the fake again, of course, even knowing full well it's a fake. The only guiding moral principle deniers have is "The ends always justify the means for my side." If any big lie pushes their cause, they love that big lie.
Zanders cover is fake on the one hand, but the so called "information" in the real cover is likewise fake.
Like this one: ftp://140.90.235.82/nodc/web/woa.data.nodc/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat08.pdf
Or this one: World ocean heat content and thermosteric sea level change 0 2000 m 1955 2010 - Levitus - 2012 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library
or this one concerning adjustments to XBT fall-rate equations: Reevaluation of historical ocean heat content variations with time-varying XBT and MBT depth bias corrections - Springer
Abstract
As reported in former studies, temperature observations obtained by expendable bathythermographs (XBTs) and mechanical bathythermographs (MBTs) appear to have positive biases as much as they affect major climate signals. These biases have not been fully taken into account in previous ocean temperature analyses, which have been widely used to detect global warming signals in the oceans. This report proposes a methodology for directly eliminating the biases from the XBT and MBT observations. In the case of XBT observation, assuming that the positive temperature biases mainly originate from greater depths given by conventional XBT fall-rate equations than the truth, a depth bias equation is constructed by fitting depth differences between XBT data and more accurate oceanographic observations to a linear equation of elapsed time. Such depth bias equations are introduced separately for each year and for each probe type. Uncertainty in the gradient of the linear equation is evaluated using a non-parametric test. The typical depth bias is +10 m at 700 m depth on average, which is probably caused by various indeterminable sources of error in the XBT observations as well as a lack of representativeness in the fall-rate equations adopted so far. Depth biases in MBT are fitted to quadratic equations of depth in a similar manner to the XBT method. Correcting the historical XBT and MBT depth biases by these equations allows a historical ocean temperature analysis to be conducted. In comparison with the previous temperature analysis, large differences are found in the present analysis as follows: the duration of large ocean heat content in the 1970s shortens dramatically, and recent ocean cooling becomes insignificant. The result is also in better agreement with tide gauge observations.
Or this one: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
Abstract
Two significant instrument biases have been identified in the in situ profile data used to estimate globally integrated upper-ocean heat content. A large cold bias was discovered in a small fraction of Argo floats along with a smaller but more prevalent warm bias in expendable bathythermograph (XBT) data. These biases appear to have caused the bulk of the upper-ocean cooling signal reported by Lyman et al. between 2003 and 2005. These systematic data errors are significantly larger than sampling errors in recent years and are the dominant sources of error in recent estimates of globally integrated upper-ocean heat content variability. The bias in the XBT data is found to be consistent with errors in the fall-rate equations, suggesting a physical explanation for that bias. With biased profiles discarded, no significant warming or cooling is observed in upper-ocean heat content between 2003 and 2006.
Perfect record for CrickHam in not being able to read a graph or follow any miniscule part of the science. SURFACE temperatures are the ONE METRIC that GWarming staked it's propaganda on. Does not include any analysis of what happens 100s of meters down in the ocean. If you want to talk about the surface temperature record which HAS virtually paused and USE Ocean storage to explain it --- then SOMEBODY ought to do a better job of attributing the pause to the effect. Still waiting for the FULL "The Oceans Ate My Warming" to come out.
That would be the Trenberth error in not including Ocean Storage in his historical comic strip about "Energy Balance" and then suddenly discovering it when the movement needed an excuse for failure.
The skeptics' side is getting more and more traction. Lower climate sensitivity is acknowledged. Only five years ago warmers were still proclaiming that GW was accelerating, now they are scrambling to explain the Pause.
Expect the backtracking to continue.
.....and just more fodder that this shit is rigged up the ying yang by the progressive media. All you phonies conveniently ignore it.
The skeptics' side is getting more and more traction. Lower climate sensitivity is acknowledged. Only five years ago warmers were still proclaiming that GW was accelerating, now they are scrambling to explain the Pause.
Expect the backtracking to continue.
The pause is getting investigated and its getting explained. .
. Lets just throw out the atmospheric data and our shit looks awesome!!!
The skeptics' side is getting more and more traction. Lower climate sensitivity is acknowledged. Only five years ago warmers were still proclaiming that GW was accelerating, now they are scrambling to explain the Pause.
Expect the backtracking to continue.
The pause is getting investigated and its getting explained. That's what you'd expect climate scientists to do. What's not happening is "scramblling".
People who underestimate their opponents lose.
