Nonsense…With Gravy On Top!
By wobleibtdieerderwaermung.de
[translated, edited by P. Gosselin]
Only the repeatedly and retroactively falsified datasets of the NOAA/NCDC, NASA/GISS and MetOffice/Hadley/CRU tell us that the global warming continues on. The global warming “pause”has been simply calculated away….
The unaltered (unfalsified) satellite measurements of the lower global troposphere (LT) by RSS and UAH through September 2015 on the other hand show no signs of a new record year since the record year of 1998 and the El Niño year of 2010.
RSS (click to enlarge):
UAH:
There is nothing concerning either a new record since 1998, nor 2010 nor 2014. This is obvious for anyone who has a healthy meteorological understanding, or…? Also see DMG: the warming trend is uninterrupted! Does nonsense have a new name…?
Even the warming number crunchers at the US NOAA show this at their monthly website, though somewhat hidden away, at www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/upper-air/201509 with a conversion calculation of the UAH und RSS datasets to the international usual 1981-2010 WMO climate mean: Here the NOAA still continues to use the warmer values of the older UAH data version www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt, even though in April 2015 a new cooler version vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0beta3 has been made public…
Compared to the 1998 record year, 2015, so far through September, the deviation is -0.2°K. and -0.3°K at RSS, i.e. colder. The record 1998 year finished at UAH with a deviation of +0.42°K and at RSS +0.45 K. Compared to the current level of +0,30°K at UAH and +0.22°K at RSS, the last three months of this year would have to be higher every month to offset the -0.12°K at UAH and -0.23°K at RSS in order to break the record 1998 year.
Could it be that the “IPCC” does not stand for “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” but rather stands for “International Political Climate Clowns”?
It’s only a question concerning the climate circus, whose show travels the globe every year in a climate friendly and low cost manner.
Why do you along with most skeptics accept the warmist newspeak and use the term dataset when speaking of NOAA/NCDC, NASA/GISS and MetOffice/Hadley/CRU “temperature” products? They are after all interpretations of data, “dataplus” if you will (á la Orwellian truthplus).
and RSS and UAH?
Sorry, but this line of argument is total bogus!
The globe has experienced a very hot year and most of us have noticed it. The surface dataset is showing, what everybody who has been to the swimming pools this year already knows. It was hot.
We had three hot weeks this summer.
Otherwise, it was below normal.
In my life we have always had 3 hot weeks in summer and one warm week in September called Native American Summer. And yet somehow, warmth in Summer has turned into unusual man made global warming events.
It is uncanny, it is like tornadoes and Hurricanes and squall lines didn’t exist until about 1990. Forget the Wizard of Oz – Dorothy must have been imagining things.
The weird thing is that 40 years ago we didn’t have much air conditioning – now that we all do, I think the temps feel hotter, since we are not used to beimg in heet all day long (my school wasnt air conditioned – the one that replaced it is) so alarmists have an easier time convincing us.
Please excuse the spelling – I am typing on my phone.
Seriously??? You thought it was hot so CAGW must be real? This is the sort of complete idiocy that we are dealing with in the whole global warming issue… “Duh, the weatherman on the news today told me it was hot, so global warming must be real. Duh!”
Gawd!!! What’s scary is that these people can vote!
“Seriously??? You thought it was hot so CAGW must be real?”
No. But if you have been around here for the last couple of weeks, you could have gotten the impression that we were in a new ice age. Focus of every second story was a random place, that was cold at that moment or had a prediction of some cold phase.
Well why not sod off to a warmist site and wallow in the unprecedented heat if it’s too cold for you here?
…while all serious people and media focussed on the STRONGEST STORM IN THE HISTORY OF THE PLANET EVER ! caused by El Nino ! caused by Global Warming! The storm that, you know, looked like a little bit of a rainy day when it made landfall? Patricia it was called I think?
which swimming pools would those be then sod ? certainly here in scotland the weather has been rather benign after a very mild winter. looking at the surface temperatures of the north east atlantic (the real ones, from pelagic fishing boats,not noaa’s manipulated version) it unfortunately appears this winter will not be so mild.
Sod, you must know that even the RSS and UAH are interpretations of raw data so methodology is what counts. Whereas the RSS and UAH have published their methodology, the rest are coy about theirs. Only the gullible are able to close their eyes for the continuous rewriting of history:
http://realclimatescience.com/alterations-to-climate-data/
http://realclimatescience.com/2015/08/fixing-nick-stokes-fud/
This is all so ridculous and so easily shown false. The facts are very simple:
CO2 is a “trace gas” in air, insignificant by definition. It absorbs 1/7th as much IR, heat energy, from sunlight as water vapor which has 188 times as many molecules capturing 1200 times as much heat making 99.8% of all “global warming.” CO2 does only 0.2% of it. For this we should destroy our economy?
There is no “greenhouse effect” in an atmosphere. A greenhouse has a solid, clear cover trapping heat. The atmosphere does not trap heat as gas molecules cannot form surfaces to work as greenhouses. Molecules must be in contact, as in liquids and solids to form surfaces.
The Medieval Warming from 800 AD to 1300 AD Micheal Mann erased for his “hockey stick” was several Fahrenheit degrees warmer than anything “global warmers” fear. It was 500 years of world peace and abundance, the longest in history.
Vostock Ice Core data analysis show CO2 increases follow temperature by 800 years 19 times in 450,000 years. Thus temperature change is cause and CO2 change is effect. This alone refutes the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis.
Methane is called “a greenhouse gas 20 to 500 times more potent than CO2,” by Heidi Cullen and Jim Hansen, but it is not per the energy absorption chart at the American Meteorological Society. It has an absorption profile very similar to nitrogen which is classified “transparent” to IR, heat waves and is only present to 18 ppm. “Green vegans” blame methane in cow flatulence for global warming in their war against eating meat.
Carbon combustion generates 80% of our energy. Control and taxing of carbon would give the elected ruling class more power and money than anything since the Magna Carta of 1215 AD.
Most scientists and science educators work for tax supported institutions. They are eager to help government raise more money for them and they love being seen as “saving the planet.”
Google “Two Minute Conservative” for clarity.
“CO2 is a “trace gas” in air, insignificant by definition.”
Completely false. Run the numbers, including the various absorption cross sections as a function of IR wavelength.
Scientists did this decades ago. Time for you to look it up and learn.
Adrian, your comment is nothing but the same old denier myths that have been debunked time and time and time again.
Can you really not understand those, or is you have cut-and-paste?
Well but even you David would,if you were honest, have to add that Thermageddon can only happen if the mythical positive water vapor feedback were real.
Unfortunately, the only place where it has ever been observed is inside a supercomputer that is uncapable of modeling thunderstorms.
The water vapor feedback is certainly real. There’s no doubt it is and will happen, unless you think evaporation doesn’t increase with temperature.
“Attribution of observed surface humidity changes to human influence,”
Katharine M. Willett et al, Nature Vol 449| 11 October 2007| doi:10.1038/nature06207.
“Identification of human-induced changes in atmospheric moisture content,” B. D. Santer et al, PNAS 2013.
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/39/15248.abstract
Forget the facts. Forget the past and current data. It’s been ordered that 2015 be the hottest year ever. Back to your post now and await further orders. Comprende?
“Ordered.” By whom? How do you know? What evidence do you have?
Its also worth noting that the satellite temperature data is validated by direct measurement using balloons.
Surface records are “adjusted” to correct for known biases. How would you correct for those biases?
BTW, satellites don’t even measure temperature — their sensor data must be run though a data model to get temperatures. And those data are adjusted each and every month too….
Nice of you to admit that the raw data is “adjusted”. Funny though how impossible it is for the warmists like you to admit that what you have is not records but interpretations. Then again it would be difficult to ask governments to invest endless billions on a fight against something that is alarming only in the interpretations made by a group of scientists, which in addition are contradicted by interpretations by other groups of scientists. And, yes the globe has been warming ever since the LIA so don’t waste your time on that issue.
Of course they are adjusted. These papers have been published for 30 years now.
You didn’t answer the question: How would you correct for those biases?
Do you mean biases like the ones discussed here:
http://realclimatescience.com/2015/10/more-off-scale-fraud-by-nasa/
By the way, here’s what the leader of the RSS satellite group, Carl Mears, had to say, last year:
“Does this slow-down in the warming mean that the idea of anthropogenic global warming is no longer valid? The short answer is ‘no’. The denialists like to assume that the cause for the model/observation discrepancy is some kind of problem with the fundamental model physics, and they pooh-pooh any other sort of explanation. This leads them to conclude, very likely erroneously, that the long-term sensitivity of the climate is much less than is currently thought.
“The truth is that there are lots of causes besides errors in the fundamental model physics that could lead to the model/observation discrepancy. I summarize a number of these possible causes below. Without convincing evidence of model physics flaws (and I haven’t seen any), I would say that the possible causes described below need to be investigated and ruled out before we can pin the blame on fundamental modelling errors.”
http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures
Interesting how no one dared to touch this quotation….
What is there to touch? Mears acknowledges the problem that sceptics have been pointing out for years: the lack of warming. Mears even acknowledges that there might be a problem with the models. The only thing missing is for Mears to admit that observations/measurements (reality) trumps computer models (virtual reality) just as observations trump theory in non-post-modern science. That would be too much to ask at the moment due to heavy confirmation bias and vested interested in AGW-theory among climate scientists.
Interesting development in the U.S. The NOAA temperature “product” is to be investigated by the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology:
http://www.thegwpf.com/us-congress-to-investigate-noaas-temperature-adjustments/
As you (should) know, the Republican party in the US is now viciously anti-science, anti-government, and anti-knowledge.
But they do like their campaign contributions from coal, oil and gas. This is how they get them.
This inquiry, if it every goes anywhere (doubtful), will looked even worse than the Bengazi committee Hillary sliced up the other day.
“As you (should) know, the Republican party in the US is now viciously anti-science, anti-government, and anti-knowledge. ”
You should also know that David is a long time sufferer from Tourette’s.
I would suggest you take a little time to read this article from Mr. Siegel
https://medium.com/@pullnews/what-i-learned-about-climate-change-the-science-is-not-settled-1e3ae4712ace#.193ka0gwm
Siegel’s article is full of untruths. Anyone who knows the science can immediately see that. Anyone who does not is gullible for falling for his misinformation.
Not as anti-science as you dear boy.
anti science while citing carl mears . how funny you are david . the man is a raving thermageddonist .to be fair, his pay cheque would be far smaller if he wasn’t, so possibly understandable by people who have no principles .
Do you disagree with Mear’s statement? If so, why?
I’m pretty sure the Luddites voted for Obama. I’m pretty sure the chicken littles will be voting for Hillary. I’m very sure that the left is to science what poison is to Rasputin.
During the 1980’s and 90’s the eastern half of Australia suffered a series of crippling droughts and el nino was blamed. Government aid was required for farmers and many Capital cities built desalination plants, however about the time the plants came online the droughts abated.
El nino is back but something odd is occurring, rain, rain and more rain all over. Looks like the science will have to be rewritten again just like it always has been throughout history.
Trump is paying for his own campaign. So where are you going to find the hook to hang your ‘paid for by oil and gas’ meme?
The warming showing up this year in surface measurements is mostly due to higher SSTs, IOW the result of the Pacific Blob and El Nino.
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2015/09/03/everywhere-elsewhere-climate-claims/
in the early art of the year i tend to agree ron. now however, for every warm spot there is a cooler spot somewhere else. amo going cold and the warm blip of the cool phase of the pdo coming to an end.
True. But why are the temperatures so much higher than 1998, when the El Nino is of the same strength (based on the SOI and Nina 3.4 indices)?
“The warming showing up this year in surface measurements is mostly due to higher SSTs,”
Yes. In el nino years, SST will be higher. Added to the rest of the data, this will give a higher total temperature.
I assume, la nina is fine for you, with low SST? Or will you argue that the last years were low, because of la nina?
Add one more thing to the list of tragedies caused by CAGW. My woodpile has disappeared at an alarming rate…. especially for the hottest year on record.
The zealots are right – it’s into everything…..
Because what happens outside your window is what happens in the rest of the world, right?
All warming shown from surface temperature datasets comes from adjustments. The question is if the adjustments are justified. Of course the UHI effect is being ignored and not adjusted out…
Calculated influence of CO2 to temperature is around 1°C for CO2 doubling (increase from 300 ppm to 600 ppm)
As we are by some 400 ppm it is clear that we do not posses the capacity to measure with enough accuracy the relative temperature increase.
Even worse, climate models do not properly model the climate. They put a standard bogus backradiation increase at the top of the atmosphere, which is not how CO2 behaves. The heat exchange, if it happens between surface and CO2, is in the first 10 meters of the atmosphere. The whole modeling of this would be too complex and climate models use the simple weather forecast backradiation model process, which is wrong for climate modeling, but works for clouds approximations.
With the plants reacting so positively to CO2 increase it is doubtful we would ever reach any 500 ppm in the atmosphere before we are no longer dependent on fossil-fuels in maybe 50 to 100 years, if our technical progress continues…
We cannot even measure the impact of the CO2 increase to the climate as other factors drive it.
Even the 1°C for CO2 doubling is actually model calculation…:
http://claesjohnson.blogspot.co.at/2013/03/the-fabrication-of-co2-alarmism-decoded.html
Actually, adjustments *LOWER* the long-term warming trend:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/10/does-senator-smith-know-noaas.html
sod keeps on complaining that regional cold spells are cited.
Here are his heroes, climate-modelling warmunist scientists, doing exactly that with a heatwave.
(German)
http://www.n-tv.de/wissen/Klimawandel-macht-Golfregion-unbewohnbar-article16216206.html
sod, you’re a hypocrite.
“Here are his heroes, climate-modelling warmunist scientists, doing exactly that with a heatwave.”
No. That is something completely different.
The globe is warming, and this will put massive pressure on places that are hot already. That is no cherry pick but plain out common sense.
Can you not spot the difference to shouting “But place A was cool”, when the rest of the globe was hot?
If THE REST OF THE GLOBE was all the same – hot -, why do they have to point specifically at one heat wave in the Middle East?
Please coordinate with your warmunist scientist frauds. It’s difficult to address a dissonant choir of lunatics who all say different things.
The globe is certainly warming, and heat waves are killing people:
2015 2000 Pakistan heat wave
2015 2500 India heat wave
2010 9,516 Moscow heat wave https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Northern_Hemisphere_summer_heat_waves#Russia
not one of you pathetic people are scientists as i am, your taking bits of pieces of results and trying to make a case , your idiots…… go back to serving up bugers and changing tires your not in the know what the fuck is going on club…….jerk offs.
Yessir, gonna change some more burgers and flip more tires so the government can spend my money on frauds posing as scientists, sir.
You anti science? Don’t accept falsification of crap theory?
What “falsification?”