go here: science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2014/06oct_abyss "Oct. 6, 2014: The cold waters of Earth’s deep ocean have not warmed measurably since 2005, according to a new NASA study, leaving unsolved the mystery of why global warming appears to have slowed in recent years." "Scientists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, California, analyzed satellite and direct ocean temperature data from 2005 to 2013 and found the ocean abyss below 1.24 miles (1,995 meters) has not warmed measurably. Study coauthor Josh Willis of JPL said these findings do not throw suspicion on climate change itself." Your graph only goes through 2016. 2017 is turning out to be *below* the mean, meaning it will drag the mean back down. Your graph actually shows the hiatus from 2000 through 2014 if you will bother to look!
This is the argumentative fallacy known as Poisoning the Well. It is attacking the messenger hoping to somehow discredit the message because the message can't be refuted. Somehow this is *always* where the AGW religionists wind up.
2017 is turning out to be below the mean from 2016, but will still be above 30yr and maybe 10yr moving averages. So unless 2017 starts running cooler it will be close to the red in the chart. 2017 is currently running 0.4C above the 1980-2010 mean.
And it's not the term the science uses. If you want to be taken seriously, don't use your own special PC vocabulary. Yep. And you don't what it is. You're making that very clear by evading the issue. I can. I'm asking _you_ to do so, to demonstrate that you understand the basics. And I asked first, so asking me back in an evasion on your part. I will be happy to explain it, but only after you do so, or admit that you can't. No, it's actually not. And you don't understand why. Hence the problem. So is absolute temperature. Nature has no idea what "degrees" are. That's conspiracy babbling. You _are_ that guy on the street corner, given that you're shrieking out unhinged conspiracy theories about how phantom socialists will bring DOOOOOM, even though youhave no evidence to back up any of your claims. It doesn't mean anything because it's just a cherrypicking fallacy, and because you draw conclusions from it that aren't warranted. Your statistics there, though correct, are a red herring.
And you'd be wrong. Crop yields start decreasing way before those maximum temperatures are reached. Days above 95F will start decrease the corn crop, days above about 85F will start decreasing the soybean crop. And even if that was true, rising temperatures would still be decreasing crop yields. Your failure there is assuming temperature is the only thing affected yields. You seem to have missed the whole green revolution, things like RRS (Roundup Ready Soybeans) that drastically increase crop yield. Clearly you, being youv'e just denied the reality of advances in agriculture science.
The study that says this? --- Coauthor Felix Landerer of JPL noted that during the same period warming in the top half of the ocean continued unabated, an unequivocal sign that our planet is heating up. --- Nice cherrypick, leaving that out of your claims. You know, your claim that the upper ocean had not warmed. Your own source contradicts your claim. Deep meaning deeper than 2000m. That still leaves the majority of the oceans heating up. The upper and mid ocean is heating up strongly, contrary to your claim that it wasn't. The deep oceans? Not enough time has passed to heat them up, as such ocean circulation patterns take centuries. That's not any problem for global warming theory. No, 2017 is almost as hot as 2016. It will very clearly be above the trend line No, there's clearly strong warming in that period as well. I can read a graph, so you can't fool me with crazy claims like that.
xDVAR doesn't adjust the observations at all. It adjusts a field to match the observations. And you're right. It does not require a predictive model to make the first guess at the field. I mean you *could* use a non-predictive strategy like the climatological average or whatever to make the first guess, but it turns out this doesn't work as well as using a predictive model to make that first guess. I don't know...that seems pretty intuitive to me. It only makes since that if you start with a field that is close to the observations to begin with then the final result will be more accurate.
Excuse me. How can they account for geothermal variability? Has volcano predictions gotten that good yet? YOU show me otherwise
There are scientists who measure temperatures under earth's surface. And, the affects of volcanoes are also studied. And, no, demanding a proof for a negative is not legitimate. If ypu find some supporting evidence for your idea, cite it.
The volcano in Hawai'i. Sometimes on. Sometimes off. Been on a long time now. A model for geothermal events immune from prediction. Imagine underwater. Under an ice cap.
Volcanoes add particulate matter and gasses to the atmosphere, and that affects how earth holds solar radiation. That is studied, You can see the effects of major volcanoes in the history of earth's temperature. It is not ignored. I haven't heard of a scientist who thought heat from below earth's surface is increasing. And, to be a contributor to warming there would need to be a change.
You. One of the aspects you are denying is that earth's warming is a global phenomenon and that the change is not the same for every location.
Magma plume events. Not that anything but us surface people is getting warmer. BTW how good is volcano eruption prediction these days? And those under water vents don't put dust into the atmosphere. I don't believe Hawai'i type lava volcanoes do either.
Those graphs I gave you are for the ENTIRE US, not just one location. Tell me again who is denying reality?
It is legit to come up with an average for the "entire US", and more so if you stick to the 48 states, since the other two are different in important ways.. But, that does not mean that every location within that average behaves the same. If they all behaved identically, you could measure one and be done! NOAA and NASA say some places may not get warmer, or may get warmer more slowly than the average. That is true for the rest of the world, too.
The report predicted grain harvests would go down as global warming progresses. Yet the US is *NOT* seeing that decrease, it is seeing RECORD harvests! The continental US is a *LOT* of locations, not just a few. As I have said before and will keep on saying, we aren't seeing "global" warming, we are seeing *REGIONAL* warming. NASA keeps talking about 2014 and 2016 being record hot years yet many of these locations haven't seen as many heating days as in 2012. While I haven't graphed it, even San Diego has had fewer cooling days in 2015 and 2016 than in 2014 meaning the trend in CA is getting cooler, not warmer. 2017 is on track to be about the same - but August figures aren't out yet. I picked three widely separated locations to look at. None of them seem to match what NASA is saying. If the US isn't warming then where *is* all the global warming happening?
Most of it is concentrated in the polar regions and especially the north pole. And I agree, the US isn't seeing that much warming...at least not at the rate of the polar regions. One intriguing things for me is that this non-homogeneous warming has been predicted by models for awhile now. So while they have overestimated the total warming they have captured the nature of it pretty well I think.
Here is a graph of the cooling days in Ecuador from 8/1/2014 through July, 2017. There doesn't seem to be any increase in cooling days in Ecuador either. It would appear than the latest trend is downward, 2017 is cooler than 2016. Tell me again how many locations have to be warming for it to be called "global warming"?
It doesn't seem to be warming in Ecuador either based on the number of cooling days they have seen since 8/1/2014. Is the number of cooling days not a good indicator of global warming? If the heating is mainly in the polar regions and especially the north pole then why is it still called "global" warming?
If it's cooling degree days calculated from daily high and low temperatures then yeah, I personally think that's an okay proxy. Some may disagree though. It's certainly not as good getting a true mean temperature, but way better than only using the daily high temperature. I don't know. The global mean still increases and most regions in the mid latitude and equatorial regions are still predicted to warm; just at a slower and less noticeable rate. Some regions may actually cool at least for awhile, but most of those are predicted to eventually start warming.
Those are all in the continental US - you are looking regionally. I think climate change could be great for Canada. Those aren't the regions that have our military, those at DoS, and humanitarian groups most concerned. "Global warming" is a term designed for the press, as they needed (or were thought to need) a term more simple than "climate change", the term used by scientists. Earth's surface temperature is warming. No scientist ever thought that meant every region would warm at the same rate or that no region would experience periods of stasis or even cooling. And, I do not see any significant science group claim that recent droughts in CA and other regions were not exacerbated by our changing climate. Also, the extreme warm temps off Texas were a driving force behind the storm there - an indicator, at least, of how warming can make matters worse, whether here or abroad.
Now, this idea is just plain denialism. Even those who deny a significant human contribution (such as Dr Curry) readily admit earth's average temp is rising, and that it is a serious issue. I know of not one legitimate group of climate scientists who claim earth's average temp isn't rising.
It's basically the equivalent of pointing out the 2nd highest ranked item on a list of 100+ items and saying, "look how close to the bottom of the list that is". That doesn't even make sense yet so many people really do see it that way.
If it isn't global warming then it *is* regional warming. And I provided you the cooling day information for a location in Ecuador. It shows the same trend as continental US, at least over the past 36 months. If the temperature of the Earth is warming then why are the number of cooling days going DOWN in the US and Ecuador? That simply makes no sense. Much of California is a SEMI-ARID desert. Just like the High Plains and even much of Texas. California has had *worse* droughts in the past, even the recent past. Of course those droughts didn't have the same impact because irrigation of agriculture wasn't as prevalent. We heard the very same claims about Hurricane Sandy! "The warmer oceans causes hurricanes to be stronger". Yet none of the studies on the hurricane have indicated anything more than a very modest impact of "global warming" on the strength of Hurricane Sandy if even that much impact. Even Sandy was only Level 1 when it impacted the East Coast! That's likely to be the case for Hurricane Harvey. Harvey was *not* a very strong hurricane. Probably no more than a strong Level 2. The big impact of Harvey was being caught between two high pressure areas forcing it to remain in place so long that it could dump a huge amount of rain in a small area. That has absolutely *NOTHING* to do with a changing climate or "global warming". Had the eastern high pressure not been there Harvey would have moved quickly on-shore and traveled the normal path northeastward and would have just been one more typical rainy weather event for the eastern US. To a man with a hammer everything looks like a nail. To a global warming alarmist every weather event looks like global warming. Sadly neither are true.
They admit the MEAN is rising. As I continue to show everyone the MEAN here in the central US is rising but not only are we seeing fewer high temperatures we are seeing fewer record highs being set. Even the state climatologist of Iowa confirms that. If the MEAN is rising but temperatures are not then it can only be caused by having more *warm* days while having fewer "hot" days. That means a longer growing season. Either warmer temperatures earlier in the spring or an extended fall before winter actually arrives. Those are both *good* things, not bad things. As Freeman Dyson has pointed out in interviews, the so-called "climate scientists" are NOT doing holistic studies of the overall environmental impact of climate change. My own opinion continues to be solidified that they are apparently acting as money grubbers by creating general alarm over the climate in order to get more funding for their laboratories. How many news stories have you seen in the past about the number of cooling days going down in the continental US or in the middle of South America? Even Montreal shows the number of cumulative cooling days fell significantly this year from its peak in 2016. Have you seen this anywhere in the news? Cumulative cooling days has a direct impact on the energy use needed to cool buildings during the hot days of the year. If they are going down then less energy needs to be generated for that purpose. Less energy use is a *good* thing, unless you are a global warming alarmist of course! Lest I be accused of cherry-picking, Australia *does* seem to be seeing an increase in the number of cooling days. But that hardly creates "global warming". The only denial that seems to be going on today is among the global warming religionists!
