Ooohhhh… scary warming trend.
They need to take reading around Washington with their dosimeter.
Their exaggerated claims work for a bit but the public will hopefully overcome the fantasies being promoted by MSM!
While these issues might appear to be extreme on a human time scale they are probably minor on a geological scale. Think about the energy required to build the Rockies, Alps, Himalayas, and other mountain ranges. Think about the energy released to form Meteor Crater in Arizona. I am currently looking at what was once sediment from the sea floor before the Appalachian mountains were pushed up about 480 million years ago as I live in the Ridge and Valley region of East Tennessee.
While we do not know the immediate future for the nuclear plants in Japan idle speculation about the worst case scenarios are not constructive and playing arm chair quarterback does not advance the situation. We need to attempt to be unbiased observers and learn form the actual outcome rather than all the imagined possibilities.
Shit Happens and it could have easily been a meteor strike rather than an earthquake of the magnitude that happened. It could have struck closer to Tokyo. It could have also been an eruption of the Yellowstone Caldera. There are lots of natural events waiting to happen and make some gorup of peoples day turn to shit!
Perhaps it’s the wrong way up!
Is the actual digital data available for that cooling trend? I’d love to run a running average on it just to drive home the decline.
Flap our arms wildly screaming “The sky is falling The sky is falling”!
It is falling lots of times! Just yesterday I experienced a Sky Falling Event! Normal people would call it light rain but in reality the sky was falling on my head! I did not see any birds relieving them selves and the clouds were a fair size and appeared to be leaking! 😉
Clearly 1998 is an anomaly and the trend has not reversed.
(Even the apparent leveling at the end is not the real smoothing. The smoothed trend in 2005 depends on all of its surrounding years, including a few years still in the future.)
You ignore* the direct satellite measurements that have tracked the gradual progression of the enhanced greenhouse effect: the measurements that show the widening gap between the solar radiation going in and the longwave radiation getting out.
You show a MISREPRESENTATION of NINE Years of data to make a point that you know is invalidated by a longer time record.
By the way, choosing the CRU analysis is also a CHERRY PICK — NASA has 2005 breaking the 1998 record. …. but IT’S ALL A CHERRY PICK everything YOU POST HERE
Now, this is an excusable mistake for average folks who do not need the rigors of statistical analysis in their day jobs.
But ANY REAL SCIENTIST (and warmed up human being with a functioning Mind) in pretty much any field KNOWS that you cannot extract meaningful information about trends in noisy data from single-year end points.
“It has stopped warming” is only supported by selecting a single year or years out of context and using a NINE-year window to look at multi-DECADE trends in Climate.
That’s a classic CHERRY PICK bukko …. and George Washington just cut it down ./….
So what choices are there?
What are the reasons for those choices?
What conclusions we can draw from them?
As mentioned above, you could choose to examine the last 30 years — that is when both surface and tropospheric readings have been available. We have experienced warming of approximately .2 degrees C/decade during this time. It would take a couple of decades trending down before we could say the recent warming ended in 1998 to 2001
You could choose 1970 in the NASA GISS analysis — the start of the late 20th century warming, and as such a significant feature of the temperature record. The surface temperature over this period shows .6 degrees C warming.
You could choose 1965 in the CRU analysis — when the recent warming started in their record. It shows around .5 degrees C warming of the smoothed trend line.
You could choose 1880 in the NASA record — it shows .8 degrees C warming.
You could choose 1855 in the CRU record — it shows .8 degrees C warming. As with the trend above, we can not say it is over without many decades more data indicating cooling.
You could choose to look at the last 500 years in the bore hole record analysis — that is its entire length. It puts today about 1 degree C above the first three centuries of that record. In that kind of analysis, today’s record will be hidden from view for many decades.
You could choose to look at the last 1,000 years, because that is as far back as the dendrochronology studies reliably go.
Then the conclusion is:
Although each of the temperature reconstructions are different (due to differing calibration methods and data used), they all show some similar patterns of temperature change over the LAST SEVERAL CENTURIES … and INCREASING over the last 3 decades !!!
Most striking is the fact that each record reveals that the 20th century is the warmest of the ENTIRE RECORD, and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.
You could choose to look at the entire period of time since the end of the last ice age, around 10,000 years ago. Then the conclusion is that GHG warming has reversed a long and stable period of slight downward trend, and we are now at a global temperature not experienced in the history of human civilization — the entire Holocene. It will be many centuries until such a long view of today’s climate is available.
The situation is a bit more urgent than that!
Your representations include that carbon dioxide isn’t all that important to the Earth’s radiation balance, that we can go on burning fossil fuels with gay abandon, and that climate scientists are frauds, manipulating data and pushing a message to deindustrialise the modern world.
You’d reminisce about past climate change, calling on this as comfort that somehow the change that’s coming will not be relevant, and you’d earn some nice royalties along the way.
You don’t mention, nor do you offer any evidence to refute* or alternative hypotheses to explain, that carbon dioxide affects global temperature due to the well-known greenhouse effect, or that no known factor apart from greenhouse gases can account for the past century of warming – not solar cycles, nor cosmic rays, not magnetic fields, not urban heat effects.
You fail to mention the consistent global scale temperature trends of the past century: the ocean warming far away from cities, the ice sheet melt and sea level rise, and the melting of mountain ice caps.
For someone claiming to have a MIND CAPABLE OF PRESENTING A BLOG CALLED REAL SCIENCE, the written publication and presentation of those representations ARE Misleading AND Manipulative AND Deceptive AND the behaviour of a WEAKLING?
How can a person who claims to be an expert in climate science “REAL SCIENCE” – even though you may not have specialist qualifications in the field – and who claims to have examined the evidence ignore the most important scientific evidence?
Like ah DOH !
Why don’t you deal with this REAL evidence?
Could it be incompetence or ignorance, that you’re not aware of it?
Could it be ineptitude or cowardice, that you can’t answer it or won’t try to?
Could it be cowardly self-interest, that facing it would make the premises of your arguments untenable and your output unsaleable?
Could it be calculated deception, that acknowledging scientific truth would invalidate your fallacious assertions and hence your entire position, so that self preservation requires that you deny its existence?
Opportunistic exploitation of a pseudo-scientific position is all very well – “never let a chance go by” is the credo that set us on this course – but as our environmental predicament becomes more dire you shouldn’t be surprised if financially-backed green groups consider legal action to put a stop to it.
There is a view, widely and quite properly held, that care must be exercised before courts are asked to make orders restraining statements made in the course of public discussion.
But that sympathy for honest and open debate won’t come to the aid of those whose printed works and publicly espoused “expert” views are deliberately misleading, whose actions are commercially motivated and who deliberately aim to enshroud the masses in falsehoods and exaggerated claims of uncertainty to avoid tackling the issue of climate change.
There is enough uncertainly in this world today from having to deal with the volume of pure idiots who chose to Blog just for Fun ….
It’s been fun …. *twinkle*
You are brilliant.
Hansen forecasts 2-4 degrees warming during the first decade of the 21st century, and I show a graph of the first decade of the 21st century.
Yes I am, thanks, the difference is that YOU ARE NOT … but you are an expert on the illogical and mythical thinking.
Real Science is apparently BEYOND YOUR KEN
“just having fun”
We have an out of work Comedian visiting us! I was laughing so hard I could not finish reading the Jokes!
This clown must be talking about all the misrepresentation by the IPCC!
This was a good display of Mental Bulimia but I am having a bit of a time connecting the words to the Puppet Master pulling the strings of this useful Idiot!
You may have been blessed with the presence of a squad leader from the CLB but a Sheeple Puppet none the less because this Idiot probably believes the BS Garbage being regurgitated!
Don’t flatter yourself … you don’t even understand what was said here, let alone in an IPCC Report … I doubt you’d get thru a single page of one of the Summaries. Here is much safer, right?
If you did understand any of it, you’d never be a hanger on to this tosser who couldn’t think his way out of a wet paper bag without “stealing his ideas” from other blogs and skeptic sites first.
I kept this post SHORT to give you a leg up!
It won’t kill you or anyone else here to humbly admit it’s too hard to work out what the ‘science’ and the Climate Scientists are saying, and accept that you just do not know!!!
Hey, but big egos just hate doin’ that hey pal?
Keep WARM n TOASTY this summer boys!
“Just having Fun”
“Clearly 1998 is an anomaly and the trend has not reversed.”
That’s weird. Most alarmists didn’t even consider it an anomaly; they claimed it was accelerated warming.
“You show a MISREPRESENTATION of NINE Years of data to make a point that you know is invalidated by a longer time record.”
Your calculator is broken. It’s 10 years of data.. and it’s not a misrepresentation; that’s the real data. A longer time record doesn’t invalidate the fact that it shows cooling over the last decade.
“By the way, choosing the CRU analysis is also a CHERRY PICK — NASA has 2005 breaking the 1998 record.”
You quote a single dataset that diverges from the other major three, while making accusations of cherry picking. Brilliant.
The gentleman, like others of the alarmist persuasion are in love with starting their data sets in the 196os and 1970s because those were cold decades compared to what preceded them. Much of the earth shaking half degree or so of “warming” is merely a return to pre-1960 nomals.
A temperature change of less than a degree in 130 years does not sound alarming, considering that climate has been ever changing for the past 4.5 billion years.
Pingback: Ezra Klein On Globull Warming: OMG, Something’s Gonna Happen! » Pirate's Cove
Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Sign me up!