It is now official. No global warming of the earth's environment in 15 years.

I cannot say this enough:

There is unquestionably an anthropogenic effect here:

It's on the climate data.

 

If the new parameters give a more accurate results, yes, you do make changes. And the reason for the changes are exactly as I guessed:

source

 

You're not providing anything new. We all knew why they claimed to have to have changed the data - the fact that you've only provided an excuse for one dataset form notwithstanding (and it is a poor excuse regardless: this is literally an example of data manipulation to achieve a political goal).

It's funny how you're satisfied with the answer, as though "conservative estimates" are something upon which we should be basing trillions of dollars of socio-economic change.

Regardless: what you've failed to provide an excuse for is how it's justified to compare this new form of data collection to old data - as though it's consistent - and then use the differences to claim that there is an AGW problem.

Because that's exactly what has been taking place - and I've asked for a good explanation for that, and none have been forthcoming.

You're either not understanding this, or you're intentionally ignoring it.

 

Come now, MannieD.

Subdermal is correct.

You are Browerbird are conveniently both dancing around the central issue!

Please examine this latest NASA global surface themperature chart one more time.

This chart includes the corrections to the grid data you have discussed. Even with these corrections included, the chart clearly shows the very slight increase in global surface temperatures from 1880 until 2011.

If you and Bowerbird agree that an increase in surface temperatures over this time period of 0.51 deg-C is not credible evidence of global warming, then congratulations! You and he are not global "alarmists".

Welcome to the bright side! ... Both of you therefore agree with our position and the scientific position of most reputable scientists and climatologists today.

NASA GISS Global Surface Temperature Data​

The carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere was about 285 parts per million in 1880, when the GISS global temperature record begins. By 1960, the average concentration had risen to about 315 parts per million. Today it exceeds 390 parts per million and continues to rise at an accelerating pace. However, there has been no discernible temperature increase in average annual mean global surface temperatures since 1997.

 

Come now, MannieD.

Subdermal is correct.

You are Browerbird are conveniently both dancing around the central issue!

Please examine this latest NASA global surface themperature chart one more time.

This chart includes the corrections to the grid data you have discussed. Even with these corrections included, the chart clearly shows the very slight increase in global surface temperatures from 1880 until 2011.

Furthermore, if you extropolate the NASA data for the "annual mean" back to slightly before the peak that occurred in 1998, the temperature then is essentially the same as the temperature today. This is the reason many reputable scientist have recently concluded there has been no discernible temperature increase in global surface temperatures since 1997.

If you and Bowerbird agree that an increase in surface temperatures over this time period of 0.51 deg-C is not credible evidence of global warming, then congratulations! You and he are not global "alarmists".

Welcome to the bright side! ... Both of you therefore agree with our position and the scientific position of most reputable scientists and climatologists today.

NASA GISS Global Surface Temperature Data​

The carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere was about 285 parts per million in 1880, when the GISS global temperature record begins. By 1960, the average concentration had risen to about 315 parts per million. Today it exceeds 390 parts per million and continues to rise at an accelerating pace. However, there has been no discernible temperature increase in average annual mean global surface temperatures since 1997.

 

I am satisfied with the answer because it makes sense. Both, you and Tisdale, are misunderstanding the process GISS uses and the reason for it. I will try to explain a step at a time.

1) Do you understand that GISS cannot just take a LST anomaly and combine it with a SST anomaly to come up with a "combined" anomaly? GISS needs to take into account that the variation on LST is greater than the variation on SST.

 

You're so inept at science that you think that lemmings actually jump off of cliffs.

 

This is very good information, Subdermal.

Thanks for sharing.

 

I only have time to teach one of you at a time.
Short answer, one data point does not a trend make. And climate is all about trends.

 

Ha-Ha!

You are funny, MannieD!

You are crawfishing and you know it!

The chart I asked you to review has two trends that are clearly defined. Note the difference between these two trends: the annual mean and the 5-year mean. The 5-year mean is more representative of future temperature trends because it averages out year-to-year statistical scatter in the actual data.

Also note the actual global surface temperature has increased less than 1.0 deg-C since 1960, and its rate of increase has gone to zero very recently.

Furthermore, if you extropolate the NASA data for the "annual mean" back to slightly before the peak that occurred in 1998, the temperature then is essentially the same as the temperature today. This is the reason many reputable scientist have recently concluded there has been no discernible temperature increase in global surface temperatures since 1997.

NASA GISS Global Surface Temperature Data​

The carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere was about 285 parts per million in 1880, when the GISS global temperature record begins. By 1960, the average concentration had risen to about 315 parts per million. Today it exceeds 390 parts per million and continues to rise at an accelerating pace. However, there has been no discernible temperature increase in average annual mean global surface temperatures since 1997.

 

You know, this pathetic multi post and delete the dupes to bump your own thread is getting really sad.

 

You are mistaken, MannieD.

Please address my questions on the lack of credible evidence of global warming in the NASA GISS earth surface temperature plots.

Please note the chart I asked you to review has two trends that are clearly defined. Note the difference between these two trends: the annual mean and the 5-year mean. The 5-year mean is more representative of future temperature trends because it averages out year-to-year statistical scatter in the actual data.

During your review also note the actual global surface temperature has increased less than 1.0 deg-C since 1960, and its rate of increase has gone to zero very recently. How do you explain these recent trends?

 

This chart clearly shows a significant increase in AVERAGE global surface temperatures from 1880 until 2011.

Approximately 0.51 deg C AVERAGE anomaly relative to the 1951-1980 base period.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2011/

No. Incorrect.

I can only assume you provided no source for this claim because you simply made it up.

There has been a discernible and statistically significant temperature increase in average annual mean global surface temperatures since 1995.

"The trend over the period 1995-2009 was significant at the 90% level, but wasn't significant at the standard 95% level that people use," Professor Jones told BBC News.

"Basically what's changed is one more year [of data]. That period 1995-2009 was just 15 years - and because of the uncertainty in estimating trends over short periods, an extra year has made that trend significant at the 95% level which is the traditional threshold that statisticians have used for many years.

"It just shows the difficulty of achieving significance with a short time series, and that's why longer series - 20 or 30 years - would be a much better way of estimating trends and getting significance on a consistent basis."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13719510

Stop trying to play with statistics. It is clear you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

Why did you post that the decrease of the arctic ice cap and the decrease of global glacial mass balance are "myths"
http://www.politicalforum.com/1060888868-post329.html


These claims are clearly and demonstrably untrue - as you have been shown

<<< Mod Edit: Insult >>>

 

No - you were shown very clear and uncontroversial evidence that you posted lies:
http://www.politicalforum.com/1060888913-post334.html

http://www.politicalforum.com/1060888890-post330.html


<<< Mod Edit: Personal Attack >>>

 

Funny you should use Goddard temp data. My post addresses how they've fudged the numbers to create an artificially higher level of temperature increase mean than actually exists.

 

Yes. Funny.

It is exactly the same data you have been posting constantly.

Your posts have shown nothing but your inability to understand basic statistics and you bizarre belief in conspiracy theories.

 

Jimmy, its not about the science, but the propaganda that props up the political agenda. It is about nothing else.

 

Ha-Ha!

It is you, bugalugs, who is being dishonest.

The global "alarmists" have now been exposed for the charlatans they actually are.

The Himalayas and nearby peaks have lost no ice in past 10 years, study shows.

 

You are correct, Never Left.

The global warming propaganda of the radical Left has been exposed, and now they are becoming desperate!

Much like this guy before he was killed in an auto accident!



Barack Obama Sr. ... The likeless is remarkable!

 

You are correct, Subdermal.

If you examine the raw (unmodified) temperatures reported by the US weather stations and the "corrected" data that NASA GISS and NOAA actually use in their global surface temperatures models, the sets of temperatures and the temperature trends are nothing at all alike!

 

What would you expect from those who use fraud to further their ideas...

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012...s-stealing-docs-from-conservative-think-tank/

 

Oh! My! Word!

That story has so much spin it could cool the planet by itself

Compare - 2 years ago (approx) someone hacked into the East Anglia University and stole emails which they then leaked. The emails were quote mined, TWICE and a "scandal" about "dishonest scientists" was manufactured. The hackers got off scot free

This story - from YOUR link

Climate scientist receives an anonymous document outlining Heartland institute's deliberate misinformation campaign

He then requests and receives further information from them under a false name

Sorry but this smells so badly of a "set up" that the odour is reaching the outer planets

 

So he did or did not commit mail fraud?