|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 16, 2011 8:05:45 GMT
What one stops and thinks. . . .you should have the warmest decade when it stops warming. Its like dying at 90 you don't ever get to 91.
|
|
|
|
Post by twawki on Aug 16, 2011 13:08:15 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by dontgetoutmuch on Aug 16, 2011 16:39:21 GMT
A pool of cold water is forming close to South America with perhaps some warming above Australia.
The PDO index for July has dropped suddenly to -1.86 which is substantial and adds further weight towards a solid La Nina forming.
The AAO is predicted to go positive over the next few weeks and if so will add more strength to any building La Nina.
|
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Aug 17, 2011 1:02:14 GMT
You seem to be conflating the USA with the entire world. 1934 just barely beat out 1998 for warmest in the USA, but that is irrelevant. We are talking about global temperatures, and there is no doubt in the data. The 1930s were relatively cool, and certainly very much cooler than the 2000s. Again, the 2000s were the warmest decade of the instrumental record. No, I know climate history, that's what. And the 1930s were not relatively cool. It also would be nice if you could learn to simply reply to posts correctly on the board properly. The 2000s was not the warmest decade of the instrumental record. And remember, humanity has been using 'instruments' for thousands of years. Weather and climate records are centuries old, or did you think that humans for centuries grew food, ate, traveled and traded on the basis of what the Weather Channel told them the forecast was? We have centuries of solar data as well that strongly disputes this false claim that the 2000s was the 'warmest decade.' That is total bullshit and you probably know it too, so why don't you quit with the ideological silliness? It's all too tired you know. As an astronomic forecaster, I have well over 10,000+ hours of meteorological experience - in the real world. Are you a forecaster? A student, amateur, or simply ensconced by the fear-based ideology of AGW in place of scientific exploration and discovery? What is the extent of your experience and knowledge of meteorology and climatology to make such claims about the so-called 'man-made global warming, - aka, 'climate change' - which violates the laws of thermodynamics and physics that rule over the Earth's climate? |
|
|
|
Post by twawki on Aug 17, 2011 9:29:54 GMT
A pool of cold water is forming close to South America with perhaps some warming above Australia. The PDO index for July has dropped suddenly to -1.86 which is substantial and adds further weight towards a solid La Nina forming. The AAO is predicted to go positive over the next few weeks and if so will add more strength to any building La Nina. Yeah and looking at the SOI esp during cold PDOs they tend to take a breather mid term and then rebound for a shorter and less strong period |
|
|
|
Post by commonsense on Aug 17, 2011 11:22:39 GMT
You seem to be conflating the USA with the entire world. 1934 just barely beat out 1998 for warmest in the USA, but that is irrelevant. We are talking about global temperatures, and there is no doubt in the data. The 1930s were relatively cool, and certainly very much cooler than the 2000s. Again, the 2000s were the warmest decade of the instrumental record. No, I know climate history, that's what. And the 1930s were not relatively cool. It also would be nice if you could learn to simply reply to posts correctly on the board properly. The 2000s was not the warmest decade of the instrumental record. And remember, humanity has been using 'instruments' for thousands of years. Weather and climate records are centuries old, or did you think that humans for centuries grew food, ate, traveled and traded on the basis of what the Weather Channel told them the forecast was? We have centuries of solar data as well that strongly disputes this false claim that the 2000s was the 'warmest decade.' That is total bullshit and you probably know it too, so why don't you quit with the ideological silliness? It's all too tired you know. As an astronomic forecaster, I have well over 10,000+ hours of meteorological experience - in the real world. Are you a forecaster? A student, amateur, or simply ensconced by the fear-based ideology of AGW in place of scientific exploration and discovery? What is the extent of your experience and knowledge of meteorology and climatology to make such claims about the so-called 'man-made global warming, - aka, 'climate change' - which violates the laws of thermodynamics and physics that rule over the Earth's climate? I limited my remarks to the instrumental record. I think HADCRUT3 is a good source. This graph shows that the 2000s were by far the warmest decade in the instrumental record and the 1930s were slightly below average. www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/You mentioned solar activity. Sunspots peaked in the late 1950s. We're far warmer today than in the 1950s. In the period where we have the best data, sunspots don't track with global temperatures at all. It is obvious that sunspots are not the dominant factor in global temperatures - certainly not enough to use them as a proxy for global temperature. Your comment that mankind have been using instruments for thousands of years is irrelevant. We're talking about measuring global temperatures directly using scientific instruments. The longest-running temperature record is the Central England temperature data series, going back to 1659. Of course, it is just a single data point and not acceptable as a measurement of global temperatures. Even so, it shows rising temperatures, with the 2010s being the warmest decade and the 1930s relatively cool. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/CET_Full_Temperature_Yearly.png |
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Aug 18, 2011 17:11:38 GMT
No, I know climate history, that's what. And the 1930s were not relatively cool. It also would be nice if you could learn to simply reply to posts correctly on the board properly. The 2000s was not the warmest decade of the instrumental record. And remember, humanity has been using 'instruments' for thousands of years. Weather and climate records are centuries old, or did you think that humans for centuries grew food, ate, traveled and traded on the basis of what the Weather Channel told them the forecast was? We have centuries of solar data as well that strongly disputes this false claim that the 2000s was the 'warmest decade.' That is total bullshit and you probably know it too, so why don't you quit with the ideological silliness? It's all too tired you know. As an astronomic forecaster, I have well over 10,000+ hours of meteorological experience - in the real world. Are you a forecaster? A student, amateur, or simply ensconced by the fear-based ideology of AGW in place of scientific exploration and discovery? What is the extent of your experience and knowledge of meteorology and climatology to make such claims about the so-called 'man-made global warming, - aka, 'climate change' - which violates the laws of thermodynamics and physics that rule over the Earth's climate? I limited my remarks to the instrumental record. I think HADCRUT3 is a good source. This graph shows that the 2000s were by far the warmest decade in the instrumental record and the 1930s were slightly below average. www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/You mentioned solar activity. Sunspots peaked in the late 1950s. We're far warmer today than in the 1950s. In the period where we have the best data, sunspots don't track with global temperatures at all. It is obvious that sunspots are not the dominant factor in global temperatures - certainly not enough to use them as a proxy for global temperature. Your comment that mankind have been using instruments for thousands of years is irrelevant. We're talking about measuring global temperatures directly using scientific instruments. The longest-running temperature record is the Central England temperature data series, going back to 1659. Of course, it is just a single data point and not acceptable as a measurement of global temperatures. Even so, it shows rising temperatures, with the 2010s being the warmest decade and the 1930s relatively cool. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/CET_Full_Temperature_Yearly.pngHow can, as you say, that "the 2010s being the warmest decade" when it is only the year 2011? This is what I mean about people just taking data and turning into whatever their ideology happens to be at the time. I suggest you actually examine the 1930s to mid-1940s temperatures for yourself before you drink anymore of that AGW kool-aid. By the way, even the 'instrumental' temperature readings taken in the arctic are being disputed. See -> wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/18/flaw-found-in-arctic-temperature-analysis-exaggerates-warming/ |
|
|
|
Post by dontgetoutmuch on Aug 19, 2011 21:19:27 GMT
A lot of leading indicators are starting to head into La Nina territory...
|
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Aug 19, 2011 23:16:41 GMT
I love a good cigar but I sure am not imbibing that Jim Jones. . . .er. . . .Hansen koolaid your on. According to Hadcrut no 12 month period this year or last even broke into the top 10. I think you're a tad off. Even Steve Goddard's post about 2010 shows it to have been the third warmest year. Much more important, of course, is that the 2000s were warmer than the 1990s, which were warmer than the 1980s, which were warmer than the 1970s. No decade in the instrumental record was as warm as the 2000s. globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/attachment.php?aid=289That's complete balderdash. Totally untrue, not factual and just plain wrong. The 2000s was not the warmest year on record. It may rank was one of the wettest decades on record once all the numbers are in, but certainly the decade of the 2000s was not the warmest. That is just a AGW/IPCC ideological garbage which will never be true no matter how many times you, or anyone else says it. What's this perversion you guys have with climate science and making things up that are untrue? Always trying to squeeze that AGW square through a round hole and you just don't want to open your eyes and give it a rest. Why don't you go play elsewhere rather than mucking up serious science with this seemingly never-ending ideological bullshit? Get a grip. Humanity never was and never will be responsible for global warming. That duty belongs to the Sun, as it always has since the origins of the Earth and our solar system.[/quote] Astromet, Like I wrote before, it's standard practice on a discussion forum to quibble. Regarding the warmest 'year' the recent distinction actually refers to the warmest 12 month period rather than the warmest January through December. The data comes from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center. This warmest 12 month period ever recorded included months in our arbitrary 'years' 2009 and 2010. The actual point was that the warmest 12 months ever recorded just happened. (This is not what cooling looks like.) |
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Aug 19, 2011 23:25:39 GMT
I limited my remarks to the instrumental record. I think HADCRUT3 is a good source. This graph shows that the 2000s were by far the warmest decade in the instrumental record and the 1930s were slightly below average. www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/You mentioned solar activity. Sunspots peaked in the late 1950s. We're far warmer today than in the 1950s. In the period where we have the best data, sunspots don't track with global temperatures at all. It is obvious that sunspots are not the dominant factor in global temperatures - certainly not enough to use them as a proxy for global temperature. Your comment that mankind have been using instruments for thousands of years is irrelevant. We're talking about measuring global temperatures directly using scientific instruments. The longest-running temperature record is the Central England temperature data series, going back to 1659. Of course, it is just a single data point and not acceptable as a measurement of global temperatures. Even so, it shows rising temperatures, with the 2010s being the warmest decade and the 1930s relatively cool. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/CET_Full_Temperature_Yearly.pngHow can, as you say, that "the 2010s being the warmest decade" when it is only the year 2011? This is what I mean about people just taking data and turning into whatever their ideology happens to be at the time. I suggest you actually examine the 1930s to mid-1940s temperatures for yourself before you drink anymore of that AGW kool-aid. By the way, even the 'instrumental' temperature readings taken in the arctic are being disputed. See -> wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/18/flaw-found-in-arctic-temperature-analysis-exaggerates-warming/Astromet, I always get a chuckle when forum members post links to rabid climate delialist blog sites such as Wattsupwiththat. (As if this was some sort of substantive source!) This crank is an ideoligically driven denialist out to promote his personal agenda. His scientific credibility approaches absolute zero. By the way, I have a question about Astrometeorology. I recently met a Vedic Astrologist based in Sedona Arizona. They explained that Vedic Astrology is the best Astrology (and judging by their business volume, a lot of people agree). Are there various theories of astrometeorology and how does Vedic Astrolology compare with what you do? |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 19, 2011 23:49:49 GMT
Astromet,
I always get a chuckle when forum members post links to rabid climate delialist blog sites such as Wattsupwiththat. (As if this was some sort of substantive source!) This crank is an ideoligically driven denialist out to promote his personal agenda. His scientific credibility approaches absolute zero.
Thats a childish attack on WUWT Thermostat. Why act like a three year old when you can actually discuss the AMS Journal science being discussed at WUWT [a href="http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2010JCLI4054.1?prevSearch=[AllField%3A+erroneous+arctic+temperature+trends]&searchHistoryKey="]http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2010JCLI4054.1?prevSearch=[AllField%3A+erroneous+arctic+temperature+trends]&searchHistoryKey=[/a]
Ad hominem attacks are suggestive of not having any scientific basis of refuting what WUWT is saying. It gains zero territory and merely marks you as a buffoon.
Are you afraid somebody might actually go there and learn that the "scientific literature" does not support your personal biases?
|
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Aug 20, 2011 0:24:16 GMT
Astromet,
I always get a chuckle when forum members post links to rabid climate delialist blog sites such as Wattsupwiththat. (As if this was some sort of substantive source!) This crank is an ideoligically driven denialist out to promote his personal agenda. His scientific credibility approaches absolute zero.
Thats a childish attack on WUWT Thermostat. Why act like a three year old when you can actually discuss the AMS Journal science being discussed at WUWT [a href="http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2010JCLI4054.1?prevSearch=[AllField%3A+erroneous+arctic+temperature+trends]&searchHistoryKey="]http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2010JCLI4054.1?prevSearch=[AllField%3A+erroneous+arctic+temperature+trends]&searchHistoryKey= [/a] Ad hominem attacks are suggestive of not having any scientific basis of refuting what WUWT is saying. It gains zero territory and merely marks you as a buffoon. Are you afraid somebody might actually go there and learn that the "scientific literature" does not support your personal biases?[/quote] If the point of interest is a scientific reference, then why not make that the reference? My negative opinion of wattsupwiththat still stands. I don't agree that calling a crank a crank is childish. Watt is a primary diseminator of disinformation and just plain bullshit. I stand by that assertion. Sometimes one simply needs to step up and call a spade a spade. That said, Watts denialist protocol requires constant nitpicking with the scientific literature. This contrasts with a productive approach of publishing alternative evidence, analysis, and interpretation. Instead, Watt's goal is to continuously obfuscate. (Isn't that poor communication? Doesn't that make him 'illiterate or ignorant' according to your previous argument about miscommunication on the Anthropocene thread?) It appears that Watt has you fooled. |
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Aug 20, 2011 0:38:11 GMT
Icefisher, Continuing with this issue of linking to highly opinionated blogs as if they were reliable sources of scientific information, and turning it around, what would your reaction be if I were to link to Joe Romm thinkprogress.org/romm/issue/ ? What is the difference between Watt and Romm? Ideology I think. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 20, 2011 1:59:02 GMT
Icefisher,
Continuing with this issue of linking to highly opinionated blogs as if they were reliable sources of scientific information, and turning it around, what would your reaction be if I were to link to Joe Romm thinkprogress.org/romm/issue/ ?
What is the difference between Watt and Romm? Ideology I think.What are you afraid of Tstat? Somebody posts a link to a discussion of a paper that shows problems with the ERA 40 model (which happens to be about the only support anybody can seem to muster supporting Hansen's wild over ice arctic extrapolations from land based weather station and rather than discuss the study you: Attack the messenger Attack the blog where the discussion is taking place Attack the journal where the study was published Attack the author of the study Attack the study with vague statements about its importance. And you said nothing about the science in the study. You claim to respect the "scientific literature" and here you are proving its a lie. Is the above in your mind an unopinionated reliable approach to scientific discussion? What are you afraid of Tstat?
|
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Aug 20, 2011 2:04:21 GMT
Icefisher,
Continuing with this issue of linking to highly opinionated blogs as if they were reliable sources of scientific information, and turning it around, what would your reaction be if I were to link to Joe Romm thinkprogress.org/romm/issue/ ?
What is the difference between Watt and Romm? Ideology I think.What are you afraid of Tstat? Somebody posts a link to a discussion of a paper that shows problems with the ERA 40 model (which happens to be about the only support anybody can seem to muster supporting Hansen's wild over ice arctic extrapolations from land based weather station and rather than discuss the study you: Attack the messenger Attack the blog where the discussion is taking place Attack the journal where the study was published Attack the author of the study Attack the study with vague statements about its importance. And you said nothing about the science in the study. You claim to respect the "scientific literature" and here you are proving its a lie. Is the above in your mind an unopinionated reliable approach to scientific discussion? What are you afraid of Tstat? icedfisher, I'm not afraid of anything in particular if your question is about the literature. Nice re-direct though, about my last post. I have to suspect you would have a visceral negative reaction against anything posted by Joe Romm. Am I right? |
|
