Reply to: 2013 Bad year for Global warming

[pjclarke]

Well, if you go back as far as 1880, the uncertainties become pretty large






so not that surprising that there are discrepencies between datasets that far back. Human influencies on the climate only really became significant in the first half of the 20th Century and only became dominant after about 1950, so this is all a bit academic....

But c'mon Mr Bates, why so coy? So we know what we're discussing, what is the source of the data in your first graph? Surely you know ?

[BlasterBates]

The lack of any links to sources? Graphs of the Northern Hemisphere being described three times as 'global'

I'm sure you verified the accuracy of the comparison, rather than just uncritically cutting and pasting from the website of climate comedian Stephen Goddard.

Going back to anomalies and baselines, the second graph is from the Hadley Centre who use the period 1961-1990 as their baseline. As the first graph is from a US NAS report dated 1975, they cannot possibly have the same baseline so once again: comparing apples & oranges.

You also have to know what data are being plotted, what smoothing was done, etc. Do you know what data are actually being plotted in graph 1? I do, but I didn't post the graph, or make any accusations of data fiddling, and its too near Christmas to be spoon-feeding trolling muppets. Hint: Budyko (1968).

Be sure to share the answer if and when you find it (yeah, I know, but I'm an optimist at heart). Another hint: I wouldn't rely on Goddard, he lost the gig at WUWT for being publicly and serially wrong, now that takes some doing.

Have you verified the accuracy of the GISS temperature which differs pretty siginificantly from the other data sets

US NAS report dated 1975, they cannot possibly have the same baseline so once again

Explain why 1880 has the same negative anomaly as the modern graph then, and explain why in 1975 the temperature had dropped to the same level it was in 1900....try using simple arithmetic skills to spot the inconsistency. (hint if you look in the mirror you might be able to see a nose).

[pjclarke]

Notice anything?

The lack of any links to sources? Graphs of the Northern Hemisphere being described three times as 'global'

I'm sure you verified the accuracy of the comparison, rather than just uncritically cutting and pasting from the website of climate comedian Stephen Goddard.

Going back to anomalies and baselines, the second graph is from the Hadley Centre who use the period 1961-1990 as their baseline. As the first graph is from a US NAS report dated 1975, they cannot possibly have the same baseline so once again: comparing apples & oranges.

You also have to know what data are being plotted, what smoothing was done, etc. Do you know what data are actually being plotted in graph 1? I do, but I didn't post the graph, or make any accusations of data fiddling, and its too near Christmas to be spoon-feeding trolling muppets. Hint: Budyko (1968).

Be sure to share the answer if and when you find it (yeah, I know, but I'm an optimist at heart). Another hint: I wouldn't rely on Goddard, he lost the gig at WUWT for being publicly and serially wrong, now that takes some doing.

[EternalOptimist]

no way.

you seem to be saying that they are fiddling the data.

[BlasterBates]

This is how the global temperatures looked in 1975.



now note global temps increased from 0.4 degrees negative anomoly to 0.6 in 1940

Note the global temperature graph now:



Notice anything?

Like the disappearance of the 1940 0.6 warm anomaly?

[EternalOptimist]

nasa giss predicts an ice age
nasa giss predicts global warming


more like that kind of fact. a fact for every occasion

[pjclarke]

different, results, different interpretations, different forecasts.

Well, that's science for you. If every agency estimating global temperature gave exactly the same result, and a single forecast for all scenarios, it would no doubt be a huge conspiracy

a fact for every occasion

Like 'Hansen predicted a 20C rise in global temperature in the next 12 years'. That kinda fact?

[EternalOptimist]

my point exactly.

different, results, different interpretations, different forecasts.
a fact for every occasion

'Oh priest, why are we SO punished ' - CAGW high priest - 'tis the will of CO2'
'Oh priest, why are we SO bountifulled ' - CAGW high priest - 'tis the will of CO2'

[pjclarke]

every single data point is either going in opposite directions, or is over .2 degrees different
which represents a whole decade of your fantasy warming

<Sigh> It doesn't get any better. Global temperature is expressed as an anomaly, that is, the difference from a baseline reading. These two datasets use different baselines so if you want to compare them you have to add an offset to one of them, from memory about 0.1C, do this, and the apparent 'disagreement' diminishes to within measurement uncertainty bounds.

The two datasets have different coverage and methodological choices, so are not going to be in lockstep every single month, over the long term... well

[original PM]

I think the only reason these muppets think we get global warming is because the friction heat generated from their ham shandies is upsetting all the measurements.

[EternalOptimist]

Damn, I missed that. I only saw one in which this November was the warmest on the record, and another in which it was 'only' the third warmest, a difference less than one tenth the uncertainty in an individual measurement .....

lol

every single data point is either going in opposite directions, or is over .2 degrees different
which represents a whole decade of your fantasy warming

[pjclarke]

now BB has highlighted two diametrically opposed temperature records for this year.

Damn, I missed that. I only saw one in which this November was the warmest on the record, and another in which it was 'only' the third warmest, a difference less than one tenth the uncertainty in an individual measurement .....

[BlasterBates]

Exactly Windfarms are monuments to a new religion, there is a vociferous minority who feel better because they're there, even though they do nothing to reduce CO2 emissions.

It's part of human nature to build things which have no utility other than to satisfy people's beliefs.

In a long distant future I can imagine archeologists puzzling over wind turbines and wondering what purpose they served, in the same way that they do over stone henge.

[hyperD]

This is very much like choosing a religion isn't it!

It all depends on what type of statue you want your money spent on...

This one's good for the warmists! Even looks a little sexy if you stare at it long enough!

[original PM]

The catastrophists are well known for producing a spaghetti of papers that prove everything is due to CO2 and to humans.
Whatever happens, hot, cold, drought, floods, more tornados , less tornados, more bush fires, less bush fires, more mosquitos , less mosquitos, lions roaming in England, Polar bears roaming England, more snow, less snow

there will be a paper to support it.

now BB has highlighted two diametrically opposed temperature records for this year.

which one to believe ? which ever one fits their argument of the moment, i guess

This is very much like choosing a religion isn't it!

It all depends on what type of statue you want your money spent on...