Thread: Any doubts about Climate Change?

Originally Posted by chassamui

Originally Posted by RPETER65

It was written by Dr Michael MacCracken, a fat cat alarmist.

Absolutely no pre conceived bias in that sentence eh?

Possibly pre conceived by the evidence of the money being made by the climate alarmist to write,there often challenged, papers on global warming.

You have things completely backwards.

And you don't have any evidence whatsoever.

Originally Posted by chassamui

Originally Posted by RPETER65

It was written by Dr Michael MacCracken, a fat cat alarmist.

Absolutely no pre conceived bias in that sentence eh?

written ?
fabricated is more apt

the latest figures are out
guess what ?

alarmists caught out again



NOAA Radiosonde Data Shows No Warming For 58 Years

In their “hottest year ever” press briefing, NOAA included this graph, which stated that they have a 58 year long radiosonde temperature record. But they only showed the last 37 years in the graph.

what a surprise ,tailored data !

Here is why they are hiding the rest of the data. The earlier data showed as much pre-1979 cooling as the post-1979 warming.

see more graphs here

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...-for-58-years/

Scientific consensus: climate change is real.

Denialists: here's a blog cut 'n paste and some baseless accusations I've just plucked from my gaping and distended ringpiece.

here;s the best comment from that scientific paper i just linked
by Andy Doctor of Climatology

Andy DC says: March 7, 2016 at 10:18 pm
Being up in the Canadian Arctic during the coldest year on record , 1979, I am sure you know what cold is.
Again, confirms what I have been saying for years, that the post 1979 warming was just a return to pre-1940 normals. There was a modern “Little Ice Age” of abnormal cold in the 1960’s and 1970’s, that alarmist hypocrites want to expunge from the record.

I'm old, I was alive then, and can confirm it was bastard cold

^
that article is from June 24, 2014
we are talking about the current NOAA Radiosonde Data...

So silly. The author thinks NOAA is tampering with data, when in fact, they're behaving like any scientist would and incorporating new or improved data. It's not tampering--it's refinement. For example, he makes a big deal about radiosonde data, but ignores the fact that radiosondes have flaws and have been improved over time. From NASA:

Radiosonde measurement errors occur for various reasons: calibration, mishandling of sensors, poor software, radiation, etc. It is important that these errors be found and corrected, or at the least, corrections determined that might be sensibly applied. *Radiation errors apparently are the most serious since the lack of radiative equilibrium between the thermistor and its surrounding environment can not be corrected for just a single thermistor without serious intervention. However, errors may be determined using the Accurate Temperature Measuring (ATM) radiosonde. The ATM radiosonde development was initiated in the mid-1980's using three thermistors; five thermistors are presently incorporated in the ATM radiosonde. *

How The Pause Was Made To Disappear

But the problem still would not go away, despite the latest El Nino, which started two years ago.
So step forward Thomas Karl, Director of NOAA’s NCEI (formerly NCDC), with his well publicised pausebuster adjustments last summer. Below is the effect on NOAA’s global temperature dataset. Compared to 1998, 0.05C was added to 2014’s temperatures. (In addition, 1998 had already been downgraded by 0.03C prior to 2010, making a total adjustment of 0.08C – see here).





There was never any question about the purpose of Karl’s study, as their press extract made clear at the time:
Previous analyses of global temperature trends during the first decade of the 21st century seemed to indicate that warming had stalled. This allowed critics of the idea of global warming to claim that concern about climate change was misplaced. Karl et al. now show that temperatures did not plateau as thought and that the supposed warming “hiatus” is just an artifact of earlier analyses. Warming has continued at a pace similar to that of the last half of the 20th century, and the slowdown was just an illusion.

The adjustments made were quickly shown up to be questionable at the very least, and, given the clear politicisation involved, are now subject to a full Congressional enquiry.

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.word...-to-disappear/


must be embarrassing being an alarmist ...

^ Whats embarrassing is that you are to stupid to realize you are posting mumbo jumbo. This is what happens when people with agendas who are not scientists try to interpret what the obviously do not understand. Clearly you didnt read the above post.

"The biggest change to the NOAA records comes from a correction to ocean-temperature readings, to account for differences in measurements from ships and buoys. Scientists have long known that ships log slightly warmer ocean temperatures than do buoys operating in the same location. The influx of data from an expansion of buoys during the past two decades has reduced the apparent rate of ocean warming. NOAA has now adjusted for this effect, in line with similar changes that the UK Met Office made to its global temperature record.


The NOAA data set had previously been modified to account for a shift in the way that ships measure ocean temperatures. After the Second World War, ships began to monitor sea water directly through engine intakes, instead of sampling it with buckets. Karl's team adjusted the data to account for new information suggesting that some ships have continued bucket measurements.


Finally, the researchers made use of a new database of land-based temperature readings, which more than doubled the number of stations available to NOAA. It also extended coverage further into the Arctic, which has warmed faster than the rest of the globe in recent decades."


http://www.nature.com/news/climate-c...w-data-1.17700

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by chassamui

Originally Posted by RPETER65

It was written by Dr Michael MacCracken, a fat cat alarmist.

Absolutely no pre conceived bias in that sentence eh?

Possibly pre conceived by the evidence of the money being made by the climate alarmist to write,there often challenged, papers on global warming.

I take it from the red you gave me for this post you disagree, maybe you could expound on your obvious disagreement.

it's like understanding little about cars but knowing you are being bullshitted by a used car salesman, when a supposedly souped up car is going no faster; after a while you stop hearing his lame excuses.

basically you lot gave reasons for the pause, but have now changed history instead and decided there was never a pause ...

Extreme weather?
what alarmists what you to believe and fear
(all caused by plant food co2)




and the boring reality ...

NOAA: Number of major tornadoes in 2015 was ‘one of the lowest on record’ – Tornadoes below average for 4th year in a row –




NOAA: Number of major tornadoes in 2015 was ?one of the lowest on record? ? Tornadoes below average for 4th year in a row ? | Climate Depot

Originally Posted by blue

it's like understanding little about cars but knowing you are being bullshitted by a used car salesman, when a supposedly souped up car is going no faster; after a while you stop hearing his lame excuses.

basically you lot gave reasons for the pause, but have now changed history instead and decided there was never a pause ...

It's like knowing fuck all about cars and then when there's water in your engine oil, telling the mechanics that it's a loose fanbelt.

Originally Posted by blue

Extreme weather?
what alarmists what you to believe and fear
(all caused by plant food co2)




and the boring reality ...

NOAA: Number of major tornadoes in 2015 was ‘one of the lowest on record’ – Tornadoes below average for 4th year in a row –




NOAA: Number of major tornadoes in 2015 was ?one of the lowest on record? ? Tornadoes below average for 4th year in a row ? | Climate Depot

I'm really glad you posted that.

You see, tornados are the result of a coming together of cold, dry air in the upper atmosphere with lower, warm air.

You've just proven that there are less occurrences of this happening, which is what you'd expect when there is less cold air about - expected when the climate is warming.

Well done Blue, you're starting to see the light!

I'm really glad you posted that Harry
If true, another benefit to a warmer earth !!
why would anyone want the cold !

Originally Posted by blue

I'm really glad you posted that Harry
If true, another benefit to a warmer earth !!
why would anyone want the cold !

I can think of lots of reasons, but you're to stupid to comprehend most of them.

yes the lovely increased were temps caused by El Nino not co2
unfortunately it seems to be waning , we may be in for another 18 year pause

March 2016 El Niño update: Spring Forward



The strong El Niño of 2015/16 is on the decline, and the CPC/IRI forecast says it’s likely that conditions will transition to neutral by early summer, with about a 50% chance of La Niña by the fall. In this post, we’ll take a look back at this past winter and forward to what may happen next.
Current events

El Niño has begun to weaken, with sea surface temperature anomalies across most of the equatorial Pacific decreasing over the past month. The large amount of warmer-than-average waters below the surface of the tropical Pacific (the “heat content”) also decreased sharply, despite getting a small boost in January. The heat content is the lowest it’s been in over a year, and since the subsurface heat feeds El Niño’s warm surface waters, this is another sign that the event is tapering off.
That said, there’s still a lot of extra heat in the tropical Pacific, and we expect El Niño’s impacts to continue around the world through the next few months.


https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...spring-forward

Originally Posted by blue

yes the lovely increased were temps caused by El Nino not co2
unfortunately it seems to be waning , we may be in for another 18 year pause

March 2016 El Niño update: Spring Forward



The strong El Niño of 2015/16 is on the decline, and the CPC/IRI forecast says it’s likely that conditions will transition to neutral by early summer, with about a 50% chance of La Niña by the fall. In this post, we’ll take a look back at this past winter and forward to what may happen next.
Current events

El Niño has begun to weaken, with sea surface temperature anomalies across most of the equatorial Pacific decreasing over the past month. The large amount of warmer-than-average waters below the surface of the tropical Pacific (the “heat content”) also decreased sharply, despite getting a small boost in January. The heat content is the lowest it’s been in over a year, and since the subsurface heat feeds El Niño’s warm surface waters, this is another sign that the event is tapering off.
That said, there’s still a lot of extra heat in the tropical Pacific, and we expect El Niño’s impacts to continue around the world through the next few months.


https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...spring-forward

Er.... do you understand what El Nino and El Nina are?

Rhetorical question really.

Here look, here's a really pretty video that even children can understand.

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/ninonina.html

A group of scientists recently put out a new study confirming the 15-year “hiatus” in global warming. That study made headlines, but what went largely unnoticed was a major admission made by the paper’s authors: the climate models were wrong.

“There is this mismatch between what the climate models are producing and what the observations are showing,” John Fyfe, Canadian climate modeler and lead author of the new paper, told Nature. “We can’t ignore it.”

“Reality has deviated from our expectations – it is perfectly normal to try and understand this difference,” Ed Hawkins, co-author of the study and United Kingdom climate scientist, echoed in a blog post.

This is a huge admission by climate scientists and a big victory for skeptics of man-made global warming who have for years been pointing to a mismatch between climate model predictions and actual temperature observations.

“Overall, the paper is an admission by prominent members of the ‘mainstream’ scientific community that the earth’s surface temperature over the past two decades or so has not evolved in a way that was well-anticipated by either the scientific community and/or the climate models they rely on,” Chip Kappenberger, climate scientist at the libertarian Cato Institute, told The Daily Caller News foundation.

“Something that the skeptic have been pointing out for years,” Knappenberger said.

Knappenberger and fellow Cato climate scientist Patrick Michaels have been prominent critics of climate models relied upon by “mainstream” scientists because they say the models have not accurately predicted global temperature rises for the past six decades.

In a recent paper, Michaels and Knappenberger compared observed global surface temperature warming rates since 1950 to predictions made by 108 climate models used by government climate scientists. What they found was the models projected much higher warming rates than actually occurred.

Michaels and Knappenberger aren’t alone. Satellite-derived temperature readings have shown a “hiatus” in global warming for at least the last 18 years, despite rising carbon dioxide emissions.

While some scientists have tried to discredit satellite readings, they have been unable to explain the lack of significant warming in recent years.

“When a theory contradicts the facts” you need to change the theory, climate scientist John Christy told Congress in January hearing. “The real world is not going along with rapid warming. The models need to go back to the drawing board.”

Christy and his colleague Roy Spencer compile satellite-derived temperature readings at the University of Alabama, Huntsville. Their satellite data has shown no warming for about two decades, and has been cited by researchers skeptical of claims of catastrophic global warming.

“The bulk atmospheric temperature is where the signal is the largest,” Christy said in the hearing, referring to the greenhouse gas effect. “We have measurements for that — it doesn’t match up with the models.”

“Because this result challenges the current theory of greenhouse warming in relatively straightforward fashion, there have been several well-funded attacks on those of us who build and use such datasets and on the datasets themselves,” Christy said.

Now, skepticism seems to have won the day — at least in terms of convincing other scientists there’s a big problem with climate models.

Fyfe’s study — which was co-authored by Michael Mann of “hockey stick” curve fame — contradicts a study by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientists claiming there was no global warming hiatus.

“Overall, there is compelling evidence that there has been a temporary slowdown in observed global surface warming,” Hawkins wrote in a blog post about the study, noting “the most recent observed 15-year trends are all positive, but lower than most previous similar trends in the past few decades” which is a “clear demonstration that the rate of change has slowed since its peak.”

But even with the admission, some skeptics are still critical because the study’s authors employed research methods they have been critical of in the past.

“All of this said, the authors used techniques to demonstrate a slowdown, that when employed by the skeptics, are harshly criticized,” Knappenberger said. “This seems to me to indicate that the mainstream community gives a free pass to some researchers more so than others.”

SOURCE: http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/sc...#ixzz42rLGry96

This should be good.