Warm May 2012 not evidence of global warming, says UAH climatologist
Recent climate data show that May 2012 was one of the warmest on record, with both global and northern hemisphere temperatures about one degree Fahrenheit above normal.
But UAHuntsville and state climatologist Dr. John Christy cautions this does not necessarily mean northern hemisphere landmasses will become overheated deserts anytime soon. The noted atmospheric scientist says data collected over the past 130 years, as well as satellite data, show a pattern not quite consistent with popular views on global warming.
Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville, says May 2012 was the fourth warmest in the 34-year history of satellite data gathering. Data show May temperatures in the northern hemisphere to be a little more than a degree Fahrenheit above average.
The data show it was 0.95 C, or about 1.71 degrees Fahrenheit, warmer than normal over the contiguous 48 states, which made it the fourth warmest May since 1979, according to Christy.
He and fellow UAHuntsville climate scientist Dr. Roy Spencer use data gathered by advanced microwave sounding units on NOAA and NASA satellites to get accurate temperature readings for almost all regions of the Earth.
The satellite measures temperatures in the layer of atmosphere from sea level up to about 35,000 feet, which Christy says includes three-fourths of the total Earth atmosphere. These measurements, he says, are much more accurate than relying solely on ground measurements.
"We're measuring the mass, the deep layer of the atmosphere. You can think of this layer as a reservoir of heat. It gives you a better indication than just surface measurements, which can be influenced by so many factors, such as wind and currents, and things like urbanization."
Christy adds that using the same thermometer, on the same spacecraft, adds to measurement accuracy. "It's using the same thermometer to measure the world," he says.
Based on these observations, Christy says the accepted view of global warming is not quite as accurate as popularly believed. He acknowledges that some global warming is occurring, but says it is not pronounced as many climatologists claim.
Add comment
Before posting a comment, please read the Terms of Service (click here). Long links are shortened but still work.
PLEASE report all spam/inappropriate comments using the 'Report to administrator' link. If you find your post gone, it's because you violated the TOS.

Comments
Oh well, good to see John is still performing real scientific studies, history will treat him kindly.
Let's all panic.
We now know, of course, that the satellite data set confirms that the climate is warming , and indeed at very nearly the same rate as indicated by the surface temperature records. Spencer and Christy sat by for most of a decade allowing — indeed encouraging — the use of their data set as an icon for global warming skeptics. They committed serial errors in the data analysis, but insisted they were right and models and thermometers were wrong. They did little or nothing to root out possible sources of errors, and left it to others to clean up the mess, as has now been done.
Amazingly (or not), the “serial errors in the data analysis” all pushed the (mis)analysis in the same, wrong direction. Coincidence? You decide. But I find it hilarious that the deniers and delayers still quote Christy/Spencer/UAH analysis lovingly, but to this day dismiss the “hockey stick” and anything Michael Mann writes, when his analysis was in fact vindicated by the august National Academy of Sciences and replicated by many others using independent data and methodiology.
If these people at RealClimate had any integrity and were to be taken seriously they would not be using the word "deniers" in their statement. If their "science" had any credibility they would not need it.
Not that we expect you to be able to grasp that.
Denier fits. So does delusional.
Hmmmmmm. Where else do we find infallibility? Religion! Yes!
And where do we find mistakes? Peer review! Hmmmm. That sounds sciency...
Oh, I get it! We are comparing apples to oranges, science to religion.
And isn't that the same Michael Mann who has been taken to court, because he refuses to show his work?
Work that is supposed to save the planet?
Right?
The same MM who tried to erase the MWP?
Yeah, keep quoting him, and throw in some Gleick for added credibility. Mr Ethics!
Oh dear! And here I was hoping someone had finally disproven natural variability!
The MBH [Mann-Bradley-Hughes] data have been publicly available for more than a decade now -- here are some links:
www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/
www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/#Paleo_data
www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/shared/research/MANNETAL98/
Researchers need not have access to exactly the same computer programs (or “code”) as Dr. Mann developed. Dr. Mann's results can be replicated using his underlying data and methodologies.
"My research is all based on data sets regarding the Earth’s climate that are freely and widely available to all researchers. Whether I make available my computer programs is irrelevant to whether our results can be reproduced..."
"My computer program is a piece of private, intellectual property, as the National Science Foundation and its lawyers recognize. It is a bedrock principle of American law that the government may not take private property “without [a] public use,” and “without just compensation.”"---Dr. Michael Mann's letter to Congressman Joe Barton (7-15-05)
I FORGET, IS IT 1O OR 12 HOCKEY STICKS THAT NOW HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED BY THE VARIOUS INTERNATIONAL AND INDEPENDENT TEAMS OF RESEARCHERS SINCE MANN'S ORIGINAL?
I'm sure Maddoff had an excuse as well...
Still all looking perfectly natural, cycles you know...
WTF?
I post to you evidence that Mann's data has been freely available for a decade and that multiple teams of independent researchers have replicated the Hockey Stick and you reply that he is hiding something.
You are a strange reptile, Gator. Very strange.
The current permanent contributors to content on this site are:
* Gavin Schmidt
* Michael Mann
* Caspar Ammann
* Rasmus Benestad
* Ray Bradley
* Stefan Rahmstorf
* Eric Steig
* David Archer
* Ray Pierrehumbert
* Thibault de Garidel
* Jim Bouldin
Try getting info from someone whose entire livelihood is not dependent on Mann's hockey stick being correct.
Found that paper refuting natural variability yet, or still crying about the sky falling?
How is it possible that we now have so many reconstruction of the hockey stick if it was all based on subterfuge? Your position regarding Mann is a textbook example of delusion.
The only thing you should be skeptical about are sCeptics.
Mann tried to erase the MWP and got caught with his fat little hand in the cookie jar. All of his co-conspirators, and fellow rent seekers have defended him.
Huge surprise.
The real data shows what we are experiencing is absolutely natural, nothing unusual or unprecedented.
Completely boring...
Now, please provided even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent or any global climate changes, or quit whining.
WWSFS? (What Would Sigmund Freud Say)? "Dis ist a classic exzompol of sCeptic Delusion due to Mutter UND Vater issues."
Woohoo! Talk about credibility! Peter Gleick is back! That's right, forget about his lies, his ID theft and other related crimes, he is one of the NV denialists and can do NO wrong!!!
Wow! What razor sharp credibility you guys have while you erase climate epochs, steal and forge documents, refuse FOI requests, alter historical climate data, fudge sea level data, lie about islands sinking, lie about polar bear populations, lie about sea ice, etc...
That's some authority all right! Back in the USSR!!!
PS - Why can't you disprove natural variability?
Hockey Stick? What Hockey Stick? I Don't see no Hockey Stick! www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfafW_3oJ3Q&feature=relmfu
In 10 years, the world will wonder why we didn't we do it sooner?
Found that paper that refutes natural variability yet Cool Whip?
1. RSS: since November 1996 or 15 years, 6 months (goes to April)
2. HadCrut3: since January 1997 or 15 years, 3 months (goes to March)
3. GISS: since March 2001 or 11 years, 2 months (goes to April)
4. UAH: since October 2001 or 10 years, 8 months (goes to May)
5. Combination of the above 4: since October 2000 or 11 years, 6 months (goes to March)
6. Sea surface temperatures: since January 1997 or 15 years, 4 months (goes to April)
See the graph below to show it all for #1 to #6.
www.woodfortrees.org/.../trend
With the UAH anomaly for May at 0.289, the average for the first five months of the year is 0.10. If the average stayed this way for the rest of the year, its ranking would be 12th. This compares with the anomaly in 2011 at 0.153 to rank it 9th for that year. (1998 was the warmest at 0.428.)
With the GISS anomaly for April at 0.56, the average for the first third of the year is 0.44. If the average stayed this way for the rest of the year, its ranking would be 13th. This compares with the anomaly in 2011 at 0.514 to rank it 9th for that year. (2010 was the warmest at 0.63.)
With the Hadcrut3 anomaly for April at 0.482, the average for the first four months of the year is 0.30. If the average stayed this way for the rest of the year, its ranking would be 14th. This compares with the anomaly in 2011 at 0.34 to rank it 12th for that year. (1998 was the warmest at 0.548.)
With the sea surface anomaly for April at 0.292, the average for the first four months of the year is 0.24. If the average stayed this way for the rest of the year, its ranking would be 14th. This compares with the anomaly in 2011 at 0.273 to rank it 12th for that year. (1998 was the warmest at 0.451.)
So on all four of the above data sets, for their latest anomaly average, the 2012 average is colder than their 2011 average value.
We love your proof drewski, unfortunately you just don't get it that the only thing you prove is what a dunce you are. But continue as you are, the only one you make look bad is yourself.
And on your side Robert, you have a litany of sCeptics who don't have a single scientific degree to share between them (Caruba, Watts, Sullivan, Monckton, Morano, etc, etc.); or for the few who do have a degree, they are guilty of peddling false information for ten years (Christy -- hey Gator, looks like I have found your "fraudulent" data for you), or they are Creationists who believe the world is 6,000 years old (Spencer, Michael); or they lie about their qualifications (Ball); or they lie about their real name AND qualifications (Goddard); or they are in the pay of right-wing think tanks (Clark, Singer, etc.); or they are slimy reptiles (guess who).
You should be proud Robert. Very proud.
You are a joke drewski, that's all you've ever been here and all you will ever be. But your identity and sense of self is so wrapped up in this you couldn't see reality if your life depended on it.
When you can't provide actual data that hasn't been massaged to get the answer you want you do what your kind always does, try and smear the opposition because your "evidence" can't compete with their reality.
Remember Gleick, who had to lie, steal, and commit fraud to accomplish his goals. That's your team drewski, better take the blinders off.
And, truth be told, I do admit to enjoying the odd "smear" now and then when it comes to the incompetent, the illogical, and the unqualified (think Climate Disbadshit).
Well, its been fun (again). And remember, sCeptic reality is only as far as your closest pharmacy.
No drewski, we don't consider ourselves Galileos which is your only retort when we remind you of this, we are pointing out the similarities to what happened in his time and what your kind is trying to do in our time. The same behaviors, the same clinging to the dogma with the desire to shoot, hang, imprison, or otherwise deny the freedom of thought of anyone who disagrees with you.
We don't consider ourselves Galileos, but unlike you we see history repeating itself. A subtle difference that we fully expect to be lost on one of the faithful such as yourself.
Too bad for you our reality doesn't need drugs, it's as close as stepping out the front door. It also has the added benefit of disproving the models, contradicting your "evidence", and generally not co-operating with your beliefs.
Now can we expect you to be true to your word in that you plan to go away again until you think you've found something else with which to prove how clever you seem to think you are? Or are you another liar like Gleick and we'll have to deal with more of your drivel today?
Michael Mann Sides with Crook
“I'm very pleased to learn that Peter has been exonerated,” Michael Mann of Penn State told ME. “He's been a tireless champion for an informed discussion about how we deal with the challenges of climate change and diminishing access to clean water. I, for one, welcome him back to that discussion.”
There is no honor amongst thieves...
Another provably false statement from Cool Whip.
And anyone who discounts the value of skeptics to the advancement of science is truly an idiot.
Childish prattle.
Galileo used science to overcome biased ignorance -- kind of like what I am trying to do here.
Good one Robert.
You argue from ignorance and try and claim you use science. Try again, you and those who support the AGW/Climate Change/Whatever meme are as corrupt and biased as the church in Galileo's time.
Choosing Galileo to rail against the authority of what is the embodiment of modern science -- national science academies -- isn't my idea of a persuasive argument.
But keep trying. Maybe your next thought bubble won't smell like a fart.
You see, Galileo was a founder of and a proponent of what is THE scientific method in which observation and empirical evidence is used.
You are a babbler of the "modern" scientific method in which models replace empirical evidence, and predetermined outcomes replace observation.
Please don't confuse the two.
Empirical evidence also shows that Valium mixed with Bourban kills brain cells. Your doctor thinks you should pay more attention to "Empical Evidence".
The "corrected" evidence shows that, a "correction" which coincidentally always moves the data to be more in line with the desired outcome.
Unfortunately you do not understand that over the range of time you discuss for the corrections to ALWAYS be made in the direction supporting the hypothesis is extremely questionable.
Tired cliches, it's all you have, and even more humorous is the fact that it is all you are. A tired cliche.
So now thermometers and test tubes are part of this unbelievably big world-wide conspiracy? What about toasters and kettles -- are they part of it too?
I see you haven't listed to your doctor regarding empirical evidence.
Disproven natural variability lately?
According to the National Climatic Data in Asheville, N.C., the past 96 years and saw the skyrocketing trend of hot summer nights in U.S. night minimum temperature records. On any given year about 10 percent of the country should have "much above normal" summer-night lows. From 2001 to 2005, on average nearly 30 percent of the nation had "much above normal" average summertime minimum temperatures -- a record - by far.
Over the last few decades, surface measurements have observed nights warming faster than days (Braganza 2004, Alexander 2006, Zhou 2009).
Gator, I did not say the oceans were acidic, I said they were acidifyING -- notice the "ing"? That little suffix turns nouns into verbs as in an action or is becoming. For example: Man-made CO2 is acidifying the oceans into a less alkaline solution. Understand now? An acidic ocean would be catastrophic -- don't you agree.
PS When does your term end as Chairman of C.O.W. (Council of Wrong)? I will second Adam as your successor -- I am sure he will do a great job.
Now, for oceans to acidify, they must first cease to be alkaline. Period.
There is no danger associated with elevated CO2 and ocean water. Study after study confirms the oceans are in no danger from the possible warming and associated change in alkalinity.
The sky is not falling. Grow up. Learn to think critically.
Disproven natural variability lately?
Of course, an acid ocean can not also be alkaline -- whoever said different?
You are beginning to sound a little incoherent my friend -- even for you. Put down the bottle and come in out of the sun. When your hands have stopped shaking, call your sponsor and have them come over straight away. Get some rest for now and we will talk when you are feeling more lucid.
God knows when that will be.
Good! We are in agreement then.
Buh-bye!
The question you should ask is how is 2012 stacking up to alarmist predictions? Like Hansen?
And the totally discredited 97%? Again? Really? Quote:
Here is the source reference to the survey you did a magnificent job of butchering. www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/ssi/DoranEOS09.pdf
Of the 3146 individuals (from 10,257) completing the survey, the participant response rate for the survey was 30.7%. Approximately 5% of the respondents were climate scientists. In the survey, the MOST SPECIALIZED AND KNOWLEDGEABLE respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals
in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.
What were the questions?
1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
Next time Amirlach, when you try to sound impressive, go to the source first (saves embarrassment later).
There's still the issue with all the above 97%ers failed predictions. Quote:
But then we already knew that about you didn't we?
First he broadened it to include not just climate scientists but also those who have had “some dealing with the climate.” His complete answer was that he thought, “something on the order of 20 percent have had some dealing with climate.” In other words, even IPCC worshiper Schlesinger now acknowledges that 80 percent of the IPCC membership had absolutely no dealing with the climate as part of their academic studies.
This shatters so much of the alarmists’ claim, as they almost always appeal to the IPCC as their ultimate authority."
"http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/17/william-schlesinger-on-ipcc-something-on-the-order-of-20-percent-have-had-some-dealing-with-climate/
So tell me Werner how does 2012 stack up so far -- in any data set -- compared to years BEFORE 1982?"
The way old data has often been adjusted, it is hard to tell exactly. See
wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/06/noaas-national-climatic-data-center-caught-cooling-the-past-modern-processed-records-dont-match-paper-records/
"However, if we look at the current NCDC temperature analysis (which runs from 1895-present) we see that for Arizona in February 1934 they have a state average of 48.9°F, not the 52.0°F that was originally published:"
I wonder why he never talks about that 4-year boondoggle of his any more?
I could do with a cab next Tuesday Nite Drewski old boy, as well as New Years Eve, just thought I'd fore warn you, I'll make sure you get a good tip as well.
Please see:
www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/4/2/muller-on-watts.html
Here is what Richard Muller (BEST) had to say about Anthony Watts: "If Watts hadn't done his work, we would not have reliable data today. The fact that he did that means he's a hero; he deserves some sort of international prize."
And what was his contribution, Werner? Watts CONFIRMED that the historical climate record compiled by NASA, NOAH and HadCRU was rigorous and faithful.
And by doing that, he took away the major cornerstone that the entire denialist movement's house of cards was based on.
So lets celebrate Anthony Watts -- hero.
So tell me Werner how does 2012 stack up so far -- in any data set -- compared to years BEFORE 1982?"
Yes, it is warmer than in 1982, however we are coming out of the LIA and there is no evidence the warming in the most recent 30 year period is due to CO2. A similar warming rate occurred 70 years ago. The slopes for the two periods in question are virtually identical.
www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1900/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1912.33/to:1942.33/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1982.25/to:2013/trend
By the way, February of 2012 was beaten in July, August and September of 1944, but I admit the whole year of 1944 did not beat 2012.
Must be time of the month!
Hee Hee
That boy can deny natural variability with the worst of them. I have asked for years for proof that this is not just another natural climate cycle, and even though he has never provided any proof, he is convinced it is not. That's some brain power!
Never mind that all of his 'authorities' have been wrong before, they are infallible now.
Faithful to a fault!
Watts CONFIRMED that the historical climate record compiled by NASA, NOAH and HadCRU was rigorous and faithful."
Anthony Watts is exposing wrong adjustments all over the place.
For the Arctic, see
wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/11/another-giss-miss-warming-in-the-arctic-the-adjustments-are-key/
"There has been much discussion recently about temperature adjustments made by GHCN in Iceland and Greenland, which have had the effect of reducing historic temperature levels, thereby creating an artificial warming trend. These can easily be checked at the GISS website, where both the old and new datasets can be viewed as graph and table data, here and here."
"For Iceland, see
wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/25/another-giss-miss-this-time-in-iceland/
Now that GHCN have created a false warming trend in Iceland and Greenland , and GISS have amended every single temperature record on their database for Reykjavik going back to 1901 (except for 2010 and 2011), we should have a look at the overall effect."
For New Zealand, see
wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/16/new-zealands-niwa-sued-over-climate-data-adjustments/
"He said the New Zealand Meteorological Service had shown no warming during the past century but Niwa had adjusted its records to show a warming trend of 1degC. The warming figure was high and almost 50 percent above the global average, said Mr Leyland."
O'Sullivan is a real piece of work isn't he? A graduate student in psychology could make him the subject of their thesis. They could title it "How To Succeed With sCeptics Without Really Trying".
sCeptics love their loons and they love you more if you have no actual scientific qualifications. For some strange reason EARNING a degree has less credibility amongst sCeptics than LYING about having one.
If you want to have more fun, look up the "credentials" of Lord (cough cough) Monckton and Tim Ball.
Joke (but not really): Two sCeptics were watching the news about floods in South America and when the news reader mentioned that 3 Brazilians died, the 1st sCeptic turned to the other and said "How many is a brazillion?"
"There is no doubt that environmentalists hate people, just recently Paul Ehrlich stated that 80% of then worlds population needed to be got rid of, Ehrlich is just the tip of the kill the humans iceberg in the Green movement."
They out themselves every time, by not leading by example. If they truly believed what they say, and were honestly trying to save the planet for future whatevers, they would go first. We can always hope...
His predictions were complete and utter nonsense yet he refuses to accept reality and move forward. He just keeps going along with the same provably false claims.
Who but true belivers in the "Cause" or the woefully uninformed would listen to this crackpot?
If not what is yours?
Apparently, there is no "ice" shortage in the Gator household.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
What a delusional nut!
Cool Whip thinks he can disprove what noone else has been able to discredit, natural variabilty!
Hey Cool Whip! Now let's see you walk on all that open water in the Arctic!!!
Yeah, I'm going to get worked up over artifacts, and a non issue...
Now I want you to imagine that you are sitting at your computer. Do you see the empty bags of Doritos and chocolate on the left next to those well-worn stacks of Playboys? And can you see the clutch of empty Jack Daniels bottles on your right? Now what do you remember – how do you feel? You are angry aren’t you? Drewski just bitch-slapped you yet again in front of your fellow sCeptics because of your inadequate knowledge of climate and you are desperately trying to counter him in any way you can. You want revenge and you are grasping at straws and you want to smash the rest of your toys, but I don't want you to get angry Gator, I want you to relax. . .take a deep breath and let it out – let the frustration flow out of you, be at peace, think of Sarah Palin and Jim Inhofe together and smile. You are feeling better now.
continued. . .
And then that is when the Valium kicked in and you passed out.
Now when I count to three, I want you to say “Oh shit”, slap yourself and wake up. One. . .two. . . three. . .
Remember now?
And that is why we are subjected to fifth grade BS, from an adult.
Maybe some day you will find someone who cares.
And no, it is not hypnosis making me sleepy, it is your lame bleating on and on about the sky falling.
"Ooooh, it's never been so hot!"
What a sore loser, gullible lemming, and immature liar you are!
And then you proceed to put 8 smiley faces into your post.
You are one of a kind Gator.
OMG! You just disproved NV!!!
Oh wait. Nope. Just more drivel...
If your much vaunted 97% of "Publishing sCientists" had done so they would not be such complete and utter failures at predicting climate.
Their Predictions fail because they are wrong.
Nor would alarmist loons be Recanting. 'The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing,' he told 'We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear cut, but it hasn’t happened.
'The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world.
'[The temperature] has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising - carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that.'British scientist James Lovelock www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2134092/Gaia-scientist-James-Lovelock-I-alarmist-climate-change.html
"The company did not receive any taxpayer funds."
Now that's just a lie. If my government spent any time at all promoting this, then we paid for it. Where does government get its funding to operate?
Well, let’s start with what the US navy had to say in 2012 (Both Gardner and Brozena are Navy): “Coincident multiscale estimates of Arctic sea ice thickness “ Published 7 February 2012. Gardner, J., J. Richter-Menge, S. Farrell, and J. Brozena (2012), , Eos Trans. AGU, 93(6), 57, doi:10.1029/2012EO060001.
"Extremes aside, however, scientists say that the Arctic has entered a “new normal.” In December 2011, NOAA issued the annual Arctic Report Card. Last year saw the second-lowest sea-ice extent on record, but it’s not just the ice that has changed. Near-surface air temperatures in 2011 were 1.5 degrees Celsius above the 1981-2010 baseline period. Ocean temperatures and salinity levels appear to be stabilizing after a period of warming and freshening. And Arctic lands look to be greening up.
The Navy, however, is looking even further into the future and trying to ascertain what the Arctic might look like as much as 30 years out — about the time it takes to design and build new ships.
continued. . .
Let’s see what PIOMAS says -- as of 10 days ago (PS if you check out the graphs from the link below you just might be able to say that the lowest point in 2008 matches up with the highest point in 2010 – depends how intellectually dishonest you are, i.e. Goddard): psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/
“According to the model sea ice volume hasn't been as low on May 31st as this year. It looks like we're seeing the same crash as in 2010 and 2011, but right now 2012 is 562 km3 lower than 2011, and 1262 km3 lower than 2010.”
Average thickness for May 31st (in m): Notice a trend?
• 2005: 2.33
• 2006: 2.31
• 2007: 2.16
• 2008: 2.29
• 2009: 2.14
• 2010: 1.95
• 2011: 1.86
• 2012: 1.82
Why is it that every time a sCeptic tries to dazzle me with a “smoking gun” it turns out to be a melted plastic water pistol giving off noxious fumes?
Holy Christ!
How do you guys manage to tie your shoes?
How epicly the IPCC has failed to predict Climate?
Quote: Tell us why we should ever listen to people who keep calling Failed Model Results EVIDENCE?
Go back and re-read then post.
Then explain why were they so wrong yet you still belive Drewski? Or can you even admit they were wrong?
PIOMAS is a numerical model with components for sea ice and ocean and the capacity for assimilating some kinds of observations. PIOMAS has been EXTENSIVELY VALIDATED through comparisons with OBSERVATIONS from US-Navy submarines, oceanographic moorings, and satellites. From these VALIDATION STUDIES we arrive at CONSERVATIVE estimates of the uncertainty in the trend of ± 1.0 103 km3/decade.
Here are 4 links to sites with more observations and explanations PS its not that they are ever wrong, its that sCeptics are NEVER right:
psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/
news.thomasnet.com/green_clean/2012/06/06/the-climate-change-controversy-is-arctic-sea-ice-really-shrinking/
sites.google.com/site/arcticseaicegraphs/
www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/post/arctic-sea-ice-has-it-really-fully-recovered/2012/05/16/gIQAgI8EUU_blog.html
And the always wrong IPCC Model predictions? You keep avoiding them.
Researchers from America, India, Japan and Australia say the study is the MOST COMPREHENSIVE LOOK at how the oceans have warmed.
The study, published today in the journal Nature Climate Change, examined a dozen different models used to project climate change, and compared them with OBSERVATIONS of ocean warming over the past 50 years.
It found natural variations accounted for about 10 per cent of rising temperatures, but MAN-MADE man-made greenhouse gases were the MAJOR CAUSE.
Those darn Indians, Aussies and Japanese -- obviously part of the world-wide conspiracy.
Yeah ill trust him.
Oh no! Our hoax has been uncovered. You got me -- I am slain.
Congratulations amirlach. Well we almost fooled you didn't we? I'll call the other guys to fold up the tent. We lost. Drat! All that climate money within our grasp and then that darn amirlach shows up.
Now what will we do?
Leaving aside the complete lack of 'world' ocean temperature measurement over the 50 years, it should be obvious that tweeking parameters to obtain the sought for conclusion (ie Gergis methodology AKA the Himalayan FOOTHILL glacier prediction AKA twice as many penguins as once thought!) is the backbone of environmental 'science'. How long till pal review has to pull this press release from the globull warming ash can of history?
One more thing, here is how Europe now views the "biggest crisis to mankind"... "MEPs have cancelled plans to send a delegation to the UN Rio+20 summit on sustainable development, due to take place in June in Brazil... "The huge increase in the estimated cost of attending the summit is simply not justifiable, especially at a time when many Europeans are faced with economic hardship," said Environment Committee Chairman Matthias Groote." www.euractiv.com/sustainability/meps-cancel-rio20-trip-cut-costs-news-512607 See Cool Whip, they're broke, skint, pennyless!!! That includes Germany's solar revolution!!!
PS Gergis lasted 3 weeks yet sailed right through pal review!!!
Speaking about Germany and solar, did you see my post earlier on regarding Germany getting half (HALF!) their entire energy from solar on Saturday two weeks ago? Imagine that? The most industrialized country in Europe getting so much clean energy basically for free for the next 20 or 25 years. (PS Before you say it, I am aware that there was a capital cost that needs to be repaid. But at nowhere near the cost of spiralling fossil fuels and all the associated health and environment costs). And just imagine the security that brings to them knowing that they don't have to be so dependent on a dirty and dangerous fuel sold to them by unsavory and unstable countries. I can tell you, other countries better start getting their act together on renewables or they will be tossed into the trash heap of history.
Ever wonder why Germany can't afford your so called "free" energy? Seems it should be a no-brainer. Unless, of course, it's a without-a-brainer.
Germany now exports her energy money to nuclear suppliers France and the Czech Republic... except, of course, for 1 single Saturday in May. You do know that energy demands drop on the weekends... don't you? Then again, all this renewable energy means more coal imports too!!!
And of course, all this energy being "free", as you say, it just beggars the imagination why a hard working, industrious nation like Germany would pay "electricity prices... that are already among the highest in the world" www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/26/us-climate-germany-solar-idUSBRE84P0FI20120526
Then again, in the bankrupt EU, renewables DO make economic sense!
Furthermore, his claim is based on input from all combined privately run solar installations, ie home based energy. My suspicion is that it is based on the 'badged' theoretical output of said renewables rather than the actual feed ins. "Germany consistently gets 4% of its electricity from solar and about 20% from renewable energy. Its solar capacity is almost the amount of all the world combined. To do that, the country is spending $263 billion - about 8% of GDP in 2011 - to transform its energy sources" www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/20120530/germany-hits-world-record-solar-electricity-last-weekend.htm
That said, Germany was only able to do this when demand was at a minimum. So much for what can be achieved with half the worlds solar capabilities! I guess low hanging fruit is better than no fruit at all!! Unless, of course, the fruit gives you food poisoning!!!!
probablydefinitely cherrypicked a date that has a low power usage, spring in Germany is rather mild (I once lived there), no need for heat or A/C.Stagecraft ala Hansen 1988.
He also refuses to release data like your other hero Mann. climateaudit.org/2008/11/10/santer-refuses-data-request/ The comments are a good read.
EMILY WOODGATE: He says there's simply no way the upper layers of every ocean in the world could have warmed by more than one-tenth of a degree Celsius through natural causes alone.
They specifically mention "upper layers". See the graph below to see what happened to sea surface temperatures over the last decade and a half. There has been no change for 15 years and 4 months, and over the last 10 years, there has been a cooling.
www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002.33/trend
P.S. The April value of 0.292 is not on WFT yet, but that will not change what I have written above.
WHAT A GREAT WEBSITE!!!
Did you know you can add your own values? I changed the very arbitrary 1997 and 2003 values that were on the site (why did they choose those values -- hmmmm?) to 1980 values. I chose 1980 as it is a much more representative value -- you know, not so cherry picked.
Well, let me tell you, those trend lines now look totally different. Wow!
Great tool. Thanx again Werner.
I know how fond you are of using small areas to make grand sweeping statements about global climate so I thought you would find this interesting:
The lower 48 just had their warmest spring EVER (in the historical record, of course). and not by just a teensy bit either, they SMASHED it!! Wow!
Of course, they did use thermometers to measure these temps and I know now that they are part of the world-wide conspiracy, so you can't really trust them. But, anyway, I thought you would find it interesting.
I'm still waiting to hear from you about my cab for New Year's Eve, will you be available?
I need to place a firm booking.
I din't want to walk home from the night club!!!!
I have absolutely no idea what you are blathering on about.
I do not pick out a few bristle cone pines to redifine world cliamtge history.
I do not point at the last 150 years, out of the last 4,500,000,000.
I do not study only the glaciers at the base of the mountain ranges.
I do not point out silly little artifacts like...
Quote:What I have said since day one is that moone can disprove natural variabilty as the cause of recent or any climate changes.
Now go change your shorts!
My coworkers must think I am the happiest employee they know!
"I have absolutely no idea what you are blathering on about."
(2 days earlier. . . )
# Gator 2012-06-11 17:08
"And of course, this never gets old..."
See boys and girls, this is why we don't do drugs.
He totally ignores 4,500,000,000 years of geologic record and natural variability, and leaps upon a graph I used to illustrate the fraud of his priests.
Yes kids, do stay off drugs, and away from crazies like Cool Whip!
To be absolutely safe, do what Gator does and stay indoors away from the windows.
Pssst Gator. Have you heard what the alarmists are now saying? That the US has just had the warmest continuous 12 months in their history? Can you believe the garbage they are teaching the kids these days?
Disproven nature lately?
Take another gander at that graph you somehow copied, without seeing.
Must be some good stuff Cool Whip!
None of them have ever made a skillfull prediction. And we all know what that means. Quote:
And you get this when you remove the "Adjustments". jennifermarohasy.com//wp-content/uploads/2009/06/hammer-graph-5-us-temps.jpg
Hold on, isn't this the sort of thing that Anthony Watts spent 4 years looking into in that very profitable (for him , anyway) Surface Station Study? He used to talk about this kind of stuff ALL THE TIME -- remember?. Funny, he never brings it up anymore. I wonder why? Knowing Anthony, I am sure he has a very good reason.
Well done again amirlach -- you are destroying the CAGW "theory" one juicy morsel at a time.
Don’t you just love the title of this article?
German solar juggernaut rolls on despite tariff cuts by James Holloway - Apr 6 2012, 2:40am WAST
Solar power boom may have eliminated peak-use price volatility
Germany is now getting 20% of their TOTAL electricity from renewable sources rising to 35 or 36% by 2020 and they are on target to reach 100% renewable energy by 2050. This will be a tremendous boon to Germany’s consumers in the near future because not only will this offset the spirally costs of fossil fuel energy production that every county now faces, Germany’s consumers will only be buying only half as much.Germany is achieving all this while hitting the lowest unemployment since reunification.
A recent study by the Institute for Future Energy Systems (IZES) in Germany found that the effect of photovoltaics is a 40 percent reduction in midday electricity prices, with a mean 10 percent reduction overall.
Parkinson explains the impact of solar upon German energy markets with respect to the merit order, which prioritizes—based on marginal cost—which sources of energy are utilized in the face of increasing live demand. By this metric, renewable energy sources like wind and solar power are extremely competitive because there is no fuel cost to factor in. Their marginal cost is zero.
And according to Germany's bureau of statistics reports, the country exported more electricity than it imported during the first half of 2011. This disproves widespread rumors circulating in North America that Germany is closing its nuclear power plants by relying on imports of electricity from its neighbors.
Drewski wins again!
How's that campaign to wipe out natural variability coming Cool Whip Cowboy?
The NCDC reports that "each of the 12 months ranked among the warmest third of their historical distribution for the first time in the 1895-present record. The odds of this occurring randomly is 1 in 531,441."
Gator, your response to this staggering statistic warrants at least 11 smiley faces.
Have you inspected that graph you cut and paste?
Have you learned anything in the past 18 years of your life?
It has been warmer. It has been colder.
It will be warmer. It will be colder.
Oooooooooooh! So very natural............
Looks like its NV 4,500,000,000 and Cool Whip 0.
If you are talking about the age of the earth, then I don't see the connection.
Are you saying it because you have run out of ideas? Throwing as much shit against the wall hoping some of it sticks?
327 is a more relevant number (the number of consecutive months where the temperature for the corresponding month is higher than the 20th century average).
Or how about this number -- 400,000. That is the last time CO2 levels have been this high (and what was the temperature like then?).
Or 7 million -- the last time CO2 levels were twice as high as expected in 2050.
But, hey, throw another 20 year-old graph at me from a Stephen Goddard or the Heartland Institute -- maybe that will stop the uniform warming of ALL the oceans and seas going up up another 0.1 degree (what could have caused such a global phenomenon -- hmmmm?).
Smiley face, Smiley face, Smiley face, Smiley face, Smiley face, Smiley face, Smiley face, Smiley face, Smiley face, Smiley face, Smiley face, Smiley face, Smiley face, Smiley face, Smiley face,
Smiley face, Smiley face, Smiley face, Smiley face, Smiley face, Smiley face, Smiley face, Smiley face, Smiley face, Smiley face, Smiley face, Smiley face, Smiley face, Smiley face, Smiley face,
K
And of course the cherry picked paleo CO2 levels, the cherry picked time lines, etc... all while ignoring the fraud and deceit from his priests.
Never mind that they constantly rewrite climate history, like the 'Ministry of Truth'.
Never mind that their leading ethics advisor lies, steals, and likely forges.
Never mind that none of their predictions or models are ever correct.
Never mind the fact that the alarmists refuse to show their work, even under FOIA requests.
Never mind the fact that they cannot win debates on 'settled science'.
Never mind that all of this can be explained by natural variability.
Never mind (and ignore) the data that amirlach has patiently shown Cool Whip time and time again.
Never mind the 1000+ peer-reviewed papers supporting skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW alarm, and zero papers refuting natural variability.
Cool Whip has found religion, and he is a zealot.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7ygn7QQNEI
Perhaps I should get a bus?
PS Let Anne see this (to help her understand the the difference between extent and volume).
Well, this is it for me. Remember, after denial comes eventual acceptance.
OK. You lose, again, because you are willingly gullible.
The Cool Whip Cowboy's campaign to eradicate natural variability continues...
Yeah, we know. You never see any connections unless they are spoon fed to you by alarmist priests. This is how everything just passes you by.
This is how you cannot see nature in action for 4,500,000,000, years and think the last 150 years define the Earth.
Found that paper yet?
How did you do at school, you really are grasping at straws. Dont forget it is now not known as 'global warming' or 'climate change' it is now 'sustainable development'. That is the point climate change covers everything, from variable local weather to variable global weather, to hot weather to cold weather, to hurricanes to lack of wind for turbines, to sunny days to cloudy days. Joe Public are no longer falling for it so they are now saying that our lifestyles are not 'sustainable'. Now if you truly believe that, and I know you are a true believer, then less people on the planet is the goal, do you get me? so stop being silly and live your life!!!