Global Warming costs mounting up

[BlasterBates]

Yeah, well Bastardi needs to switch to decaff, his prose is practically unreadable:



About the only checkable FACT in this poorly punctuated screed is the lack of stratospheric cooling, which is balony.

Oh and the global anomaly map was sea temperatures only, missing out the 30% of the globe that fluctuates the most.

So what does the Satellite, which measures the entire globe say then:
AMSU-A Temperatures Trends from NOAA-15

0.87 deg F colder than last year.

hmm looks like cooling to me.

But I'm sure you can find some local weather where it is above average temps.

[EternalOptimist]

hey pj


I am sceptical that gw is caused by co2, I am sceptical that sea levels are rising due to man.

so what am I ?

a denier
a voodoo scientist
akin to a holocaust denier
a fat western selfish planet destroyer



or what ?

[DimPrawn]

hey pj


I am sceptical that gw is caused by co2, I am sceptical that sea levels are rising due to man.

so what am I ?

a denier
a voodoo scientist
akin to a holocaust denier
a fat western selfish planet destroyer



or what ?

The alarmists just call all those s

HTH

[pjclarke]

You need rather more than 2 data points a year apart to call the end of a decades-long trend , wouldn't you say? Try going to the AMSU site and adding the 'average' line to the graph see what happens to your global cooling. For a add in 2010 and see how much warmer than average last year was ....

http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/

[pjclarke]

I am sceptical that gw is caused by co2, I am sceptical that sea levels are rising due to man.

so what am I

Either ill-informed, blinkered, a troll, or just possibly a maverick genius who has overturned several textbooks worth of basic science.

But we can examine the causes of your scepticism if you like. Do you, for example, accept the finding that greenhouse gas accumulation (not just CO2 btw) has caused a radiative imbalance, or forcing, equivalent to an addition 1.6W on average falling on each and every square metre of the planet? And that objects in such an imbalance must get warmer or contravene the Laws of Thermodynamics?

[EternalOptimist]

Either ill-informed, blinkered, a troll, or just possibly a maverick genius who has overturned several textbooks worth of basic science.

But we can examine the causes of your scepticism if you like. Do you, for example, accept the finding that greenhouse gas accumulation (not just CO2 btw) has caused a radiative imbalance, or forcing, equivalent to an addition 1.6W on average falling on each and every square metre of the planet? And that objects in such an imbalance must get warmer or contravene the Laws of Thermodynamics?

aha. I like this. I like it when they stop using models and propoganda and make concrete statements.


well I m not ill informed. I know a lot more than most non scientists.
I am not blinkered, just waiting to be persuaded. (I have altered my views on stuff, due to peeps on here)
I am not a troll. I am the least likely person on this site to stir things up, just for a reaction.
I am not a maverick genius in this area. I recognise world class, because I am sh1t hot in my field
but climate is not my field.

that rules out all the options (in my mind).

based on probability then i must be blinkered.

so I will consider this and get back to you pj.

[suityou01]

aha. I like this. I like it when they stop using models and propoganda and make concrete statements.


well I m not ill informed. I know a lot more than most non scientists.
I am not blinkered, just waiting to be persuaded. (I have altered my views on stuff, due to peeps on here)
I am not a troll. I am the least likely person on this site to stir things up, just for a reaction.
I am not a maverick genius in this area. I recognise world class, because I am sh1t hot in my field
but climate is not my field.

that rules out all the options (in my mind).

based on probability then i must be blinkered.

so I will consider this and get back to you pj.

Yer but you could blag your way into a climate sience gig though

[pjclarke]

Go Joe!

I accept Joe Bastardi’s wager on global warming — and I also challenge him to one on Arctic sea ice -- Joe Romm.

[MarillionFan]

aha. I like this. I like it when they stop using models and propoganda and make concrete statements.


well I m not ill informed. I know a lot more than most non scientists.
I am not blinkered, just waiting to be persuaded. (I have altered my views on stuff, due to peeps on here)
I am not a troll. I am the least likely person on this site to stir things up, just for a reaction.
I am not a maverick genius in this area. I recognise world class, because I am sh1t hot in my field
but climate is not my field.

that rules out all the options (in my mind).

based on probability then i must be blinkered.

so I will consider this and get back to you pj.

You're a bloody fibber though.

[BlasterBates]

You need rather more than 2 data points a year apart to call the end of a decades-long trend , wouldn't you say? Try going to the AMSU site and adding the 'average' line to the graph see what happens to your global cooling. For a add in 2010 and see how much warmer than average last year was ....

http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/

You seem to have forgotten the cooling in 2008 that took the temperatures back down to where they were in 1997, and now they're probably going down further. One cool year might be a statistical outlier but two cool years in fairly quick succession. Could be the start of a trend.

You need to read this:

Don J. Easterbrook, Research Publications: Global climate change | global warming

Looks like his prediction is coming true.

...and Professor Easterbrook doesn't plagiarise his work. He wouldn't give a plagiarised keynote speech at a conference.