There has been no global warming for 50.4% of the satellite temperature record.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Recent Comments
Morgan Wright on Climate Destroying Shrimp Nicholas McGinley on “The world began to end… Nicholas McGinley on “The world began to end… Nicholas McGinley on “The world began to end… saveenergy on What’s At Stake? willys36 on “The world began to end… Morgan Wright on Climate Homicide saveenergy on Climate Homicide saveenergy on Homophobic Gas Walter on Protecting Endangered Species
The 1998 ElNino added about 0.25C to the atmospheric temperature.
If you remove that 0.25C from temps after the ElNino, you get this…
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1979/to:1997/plot/rss/from:1979/to:1997/trend/plot/rss/from:2001/offset:-.25/plot/rss/from:2001/trend/offset:-.25
No CO2 based warming over the whole RSS satellite record.
I blame Antarctic Sea Ice for not heating up the Planet.
Something must be done about that. Perhaps nuclear icebreakers or maybe some giant fans to blow the heat from the 4 Hiroshima bombs a second down south.
I’ll need a sizeable research grant to do a fan study before the SHTF.
It is remarkable how a permanent albedo change arrived with the IPCC second assessment report.
I think that professional flea bag Choo Choo Pachauri was trying to get his pal elected President, that is what I think.
For the last 80 years, the only period of signficant US warming was between 1980 and 1998. The rest of the time, either flat or down. Not a very convincing case for catastrophic warming.
Reblogged this on Power To The People and commented:
“When Climate Models disagree with reality reality is not what’s false” Vanrenholt “The Neglected Sun”
The greatest scam of the century, or, of all time. All to redistribute Western wealth. More precisely, to destroy that wealth.
The left side of this graph should be labeled degrees centigrade or fahrenheit. And what is zero? Why aren’t the real temperatures used? And was there an adjustment made to the raw temperatures in the blue range, or was that a different temperature set?
You might want to learn a little bit about the standard methodologies used in this field before commenting.
OK, so this graph isn’t really something that I should expect to be able to understand just by looking at it. Thanks for the feedback.
There is nothing complicated about the graph, and is something anyone involved in this debate should understand.
OK, so this isn’t a graph I should expect to understand if I’m not involved in the debate. Well, anyway, I don’t doubt the significance of it.
To be fair Steven. US stuff is notorious for inconsistency in the use of SI versus imperial units. Some graphs are C, some are F. I’m assuming you are consistent with UAH, GISS and HADCRUT and the graph is in C. Not sure why the insistence that people assume.
It would be nice if WFT labeled the axes, but I don’t have any control over that.
click on the link under the graph,or go here. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996.5/plot/rss/from:1996.5/trend/plot/rss/to:1996.5/plot/rss/to:1996.5/trend
Denny,
The woodfortrees.org database is well known in both yhe skeptic and warmmonger community. It is an online database that houses most of the key climate datasets. It is not Steves job to take you buy the hand and teach you how to understand the interface.
For my purposes, being the only advocate for climate change skepticism in a group of global warming enthusiasts, I can’t use a graph visual with a mystery vertical axis that apparently not even those who understand it can explain to me in a couple sentences (or attach a short explanation to the graph). One option that’s not open to me in this environment is to provide a link to this graph with a suggestion that they study up on what it means (by learning a little bit of the standard methodologies used in this field, and I’m not going to hold their hands while they do it). My comments aren’t a criticism — you have every right to be a source of information only for those “involved in the debate”.
Denny, the left side is temp degrees C..
..the bottom is years
If you want to really blow them out of the water…
If you want to see just how silly and stupid global warming really is…
instead of looking at those exaggerated graphs
…try to find it on a red line alcohol thermometer
This is what global warming looks like plotted on a alcohol thermometer………..
http://suyts.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/image266.png
The graph is anomaly (deviation) from normal in degrees C. The baseline, or zero (0) on the graph is the 30-year average for the baseline period, which varies by dataset:
Source Baseline period
GISTEMP Jan 1951 – Dec 1980 (30 years)
HADCRUT3 Jan 1961 – Dec 1990 (30 years)
RSS Jan 1979 – Dec 1998 (20 years)
UAH Jan 1981 – Dec 2010 (30 years)
Correction to above: 20-year baseline for RSS.
Thanks for the explanation.
Latitude, can you tell me how your graph “image266.png” is generated. Someone challenged me on it. Thanks.
Denny: Google is your friend. Looking at the graph above, you can see it says “rss” and it has something to do with temperature. Try these two keywords in google. rss and temperature.
Thanks Steve for the Graph. I made the mistake of posting it to an environmental site mistakenly thinking we could have a discussion. Here is a comment I received back. I have no idea what he is talking about.
“First, it is not physically possible to have a 0.2 degree instantaneous step change in temperature. Any methodology (if you can call it that) that allows for step changes in continuously variable functions (such as temperature change) is invalid. The methodology used to “fit” these curves to the data is scientifically/mathematically unsound.
Even if the authors of this graph had avoided the above obvious criticism by putting a very steep (but non-vertical) line between the other two lines, the phenomenon could not be explained by El Nino. Even if an El Nino effect could raise the temperature by 0.2 degrees over a short period of time, it’s effects would be temporary. The temperature would settle back down to where it was before the El Nino (From looking at the graph I would guess that the spike in the 97-98 timeframe was caused by an El Nino). If that were not the case then each successive El Nino would ratchet up the temperature by some value (such as 0.2 degrees), then the temperature would hold, then the next El Nino would ratchet the temperature up again, etc, etc. THAT my friend would be a very serious problem. Fortunately the real world doesn’t work that way. How many El Ninos were there from 1997 to 2010? Why didn’t they ratchet up the temperature like the one in 1997 supposedly did? Ain’t gonna happen.
Please read this for a better understanding of El Ninos.
One fact pulled from the above:
Quote:
Typically, this anomaly happens at irregular intervals of two to seven years, and lasts nine months to two years.[5] The average period length is five years.
Cityboy, please, please take a minute to digest the above. Then ask yourself why your source would publish invalid information.”
Alarmist mental midgets.
Yeah, but the reply might have just alienated someone who is new to all this and is seeking the truth.
Treating people who don’t know in an offhand way is not helpful and smacks of ‘if you don’t know what we are talking about you are an idiot’, so unimpressed by the response here, he’ll look up Mckibben / Nutjobicelli / Monbiot.
Lets try to be nice and helpful to everyone who comes along eh?
Latitude says:
April 28, 2014 at 5:12 pm
Sublime. The whole thing has become too absurd for words.
A good scientist would always label the x and y axes
The woodfortrees.org interface isn’t a scientist, its a database interface, and it doesn’t label the axis for a reason. You can graph multiple data sets of different things on the same graph. Its up to you to know the units of each series.
Warmmogners always have a near pavlovian response to the woodfortrees.org database. They dont know what it is but its wrong!