From the Center for American Progress Action Fund via Maggies Farm:
This tragic, deadly, and destructive weather — not to mention the droughts in Georgia, California, Kansas, North Carolina, Florida, Tennessee, North Dakota, and elsewhere across the country — are consistent with the changes scientists predicted would come with global warming. Gov. Chet Culver (D-IA) called the three weeks of storms that gave rise to the floods in his state "historic in proportion," saying "very few people could anticipate or prepare for that type of event." Culver is, unfortunately, wrong. As far back as 1995, analysis by the National Climatic Data Center showed that the United States "had suffered a statistically significant increase in a variety of extreme weather events." In 2007, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that it is "very likely" that man-made global warming will bring an "increase in frequency of hot extremes, heat waves and heavy precipitation." The Nobel Prize-winning panel of thousands of scientists and government officials also found, "Altered frequencies and intensities of extreme weather, together with sea level rise, are expected to have mostly adverse effects on natural and human systems." In 2002, scientists said that "increased precipitation, an expected outcome of climate change, may cause losses of US corn production to double over the next 30 years — additional damage that could cost agriculture $3 billion per year." Scientists have also found that the "West will see devastating droughts as global warming reduces the amount of mountain snow and causes the snow that does fall to melt earlier in the year."
Beyond the fact that these folks could profitably learn about a writing concept called a "paragraph break," this analysis is hilariously bad. The key fact not mentioned is that the first five months of 2008 have been the coldest in decades, both in the US and worldwide, and have been far colder than 2007, which saw much milder weather and fewer tornadoes this time of year (more here). In fact one could easily, but probably incorrectly since it is such a short period of time, posit that warming would reduce tornadoes, since this year’s cold weather has increased them so much.
Because we have not seen any global warming trend over the last 10 years, alarmists have switched to "climate change" as their bogeyman. In particular, they argue that global warming will increase severe weather frequency. There is a lot of evidence that this statement is incorrect, but lets accept it for a minute. Their theory still requires an intermediate step of warming. There is no mechanism anyone has ever described where increasing CO2 directly yields increases in severe weather without passing through warming first.
But this is exactly what they are trying to claim, at least with the masses: They are in effect claiming that somehow CO2 causes severe weather directly. But this is simply impossible. If the world has been colder this year, then severe weather, if it results from temperature change at all, is resulting from the cold weather, not warming.
In fact, the article goes on to imply that crop problems this year are due to man-made effects, that somehow global warming is causing these failures. But crop problems this year are almost entirely due to cold spring tempertures and late frosts. You have really got to be a master PR spinner to convert frost and cold issues into a global warming problem.
The whole thing is pretty funny. More on tornadoes and warming here.
Update: I could post a zillion of these, but here is one example of what is ailing crops:
Wheat, durum and barley crops are currently one to two weeks behind normal due to cold weather so far this spring, with temperatures 3° to 5°C below normal.
"A continuation of cool weather could lead to delayed development and increased risk of frost damage this fall," said Bruce Burnett, the CWB’s director of weather and market analysis, in the board’s release Thursday.
Update #2: US Tornado fatalities graphed for the last 100 years:
Durum!!!??? This is used to make pasta. What a catastrophe.
Let us once again debunk the lies you repeatedly spout.
1. the first five months of 2008 have been the coldest in decades – the graph you link to shows that the last time it was cooler than the first five months of 2008 was way back in late 2006. But perhaps you meant that they were the coldest for many decades, when compared to other Jan-May periods. Well, let’s see. From GISS, the last time a Jan-May period had a smaller anomaly than that seen in 2008 was in 1997. From RSS, it was also 1997. From HadCRUT3, 1997. And from UAH – well there’s a result, we have to go all the way back to 1993.
Neither 1993 nor 1997 was ‘many decades’ ago. Your claim is a lie.
2. we have not seen any global warming trend over the last 10 years – here are the 10 year trends (1998-2007) in annual mean temperatures from the four most widely used global temperature measurements, with 9 year trends excluding the massive El Niño of 1998 in brackets. RSS: +0.02 (+0.27) °C/decade. UAH: +0.05 (+0.30) °C/decade. HadCRUT: +0.04 (+0.14) °C/decade. GISS: +0.18 (+0.30)°C/decade.
All those trends are positive. Your claim is a lie. Further, you obviously don’t understand the despite this, 10 years is not a long enough period over which to reliably calculate climate trends.
It is pure idiocy to repeatedly make the same claims when the facts directly contradict them.
Come on Scientist. You only get positive trends if you put “El Nino in brackets.” If you don’t, the trend is down. This isn’t a lie. It’s the truth.
If ten years isn’t long enough, what is long enough? And where has the heat gone? Is isn’t in the atmosphere and we can’t find it in the oceans.
I assume that since you say that ten year isn’t long enough to measure climate that you will agree that any events such as hurricanes, tornadoes, etc. can’t be blamed on global warming.
Scientist, ever thought of spending time outdoors maybe you could drop by that local weather station GISS is using for there statistics.
They are easy to find in University parking lots or on roof tops right beside that AC unit.
But before you head out put a jacket on cause it really is cold outside these days.
Er, Daniel, can you not read? All the numbers are positive, regardless of whether 1998 is included or not.
Thirty years is long enough. Who is the ‘we’ who can’t find heat in the oceans?
No single event can be attributed to global warming. A change in the long term statistics of such events (like hurricanes getting stronger) can be.
UAH MSU
Peak recorded anomaly:
February, 1998: +0.76 °C
Current relative to peak recorded: -0.93 °C
RSS
Peak recorded anomaly:
April, 1998: +0.90 °C
Current relative to peak recorded: -0.984 °C
HADLEY CRUT3
Peak recorded anomaly:
February, 1998: +0.75 °C
Current relative to peak recorded: -0.5 °C
All from this link:
http://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.html#UAH%20MSU
And what is the warmth of the current month relative to the warmest month on record supposed to tell us about global warming, exactly?
Scientist writes:
“And what is the warmth of the current month relative to the warmest month on record supposed to tell us about global warming, exactly?”
Gosh you are that dense after all.I was responding to your error in this quote you are attributed to:
“2. we have not seen any global warming trend over the last 10 years – here are the 10 year trends (1998-2007) in annual mean temperatures from the four most widely used global temperature measurements, with 9 year trends excluding the massive El Niño of 1998 in brackets. RSS: +0.02 (+0.27) °C/decade. UAH: +0.05 (+0.30) °C/decade. HadCRUT: +0.04 (+0.14) °C/decade. GISS: +0.18 (+0.30)°C/decade.”
These are YOUR words and they are wrong!
You go on to write incorrectly:
“All those trends are positive. Your claim is a lie. Further, you obviously don’t understand the despite this, 10 years is not a long enough period over which to reliably calculate climate trends.”
I was pointing out that today it is cooler worldwide than it was in 1998.Meaning that there has been NO net warming trend.I showed the proof and you just reply in a daze.
I hope you realize that they go on a RUNNING MEAN.
LOL
You draw a line from the warmest month on record to last month’s temperature, and you think that’s the climate trend? What a retard.
LOL,
I simply showed that YOUR claim of a POSITIVE warming trend from 1998 to 2007 was incorrect.The one you seem to accept as a valid climate trend.Only because you incorrectly thought it was a valid warming trend.Favoring your AGW beliefs.
You are running on empty lady.You are no scientist at all since you are too stupid to notice that you were easily exposed as making up numbers and calling the writer a liar.Claiming the trend from 1998-2007 was a positive warming trend.YOU were wrong.Get over it!
I showed you the actual data from the official weather reporting stations.The ones that showed a ….. NEGATIVE trend in favor of a cooling one.I even had the gall to provide a link to them.A cooling trend since 1998.
I have been in contact with REAL scientists and even with those who favor AGW nonsense write so much better than you and much more civilly too.You are a fraud and a charlatan.You are wrong and you have flailed in replies ever since.
I never stated they were the “warmest month on record”.That is all your delusion.I simply posted excerpts of the 1998 high points in global warmth.
I never stated anything about whether 10 years is a valid trend to be making conclusions on.YOU are the one who after seemingly calling the writer a liar and using apparently made up numbers claiming that the 1998-2007 was actually a warming trend.
Now that I have for the he he he… 3rd time explained the corrections that showed YOU being a hypocritical ass using a 10 year trend claiming it was a warming one in order to call the writer a liar.
The very thing you are castigating me over.I quote your redneck words:
“You draw a line from the warmest month on record to last month’s temperature, and you think that’s the climate trend? What a retard.”
ROFLMAO!!!
Why don’t you quit while you are way behind?
Fucaloro, by the satellite data he is correct. By land data it is inaccurate. This is after the **ahem ** adjustments to the record to account for pesky instrumentality warming.
Instead of trying to draw lines through periods of data that is clearly not linear (ever hear of residual analysis ‘Scientist’), try using a time series technique that is designed to estimate a value for a trend component where that trend is ‘changing’. Something like the Holt-Winters method, I’ve done it with the Hadley series data and it clearly shows the trend to be downwards for more than the past year.
sunsettommy, you are sincerely very stupid indeed. Do you really think you’ve said something about climate trends, using two data points? I think you’re brain-damaged if you think that. I never stated they were the “warmest month on record” – oh really? So what did you mean by using the words Peak recorded anomaly?
I usually ignore scientrollogist’s posts, but for any newbies, I will point out that the way he gets a positive trend since 1998 is by averaging in temperature increases which took place BEFORE 1998.
“So what did you mean by using the words Peak recorded anomaly?”
They were not the hottest month on record.It was peak of a RUNNING MEAN.Then too I TOLD you that I got this from a link I posted (that you obviously never looked into).It is apparent that you have completely misunderstood what the phrase mean.
I did ask you earlier: “I hope you realize that they go on a RUNNING MEAN.”
It still has not dawned on you yet.
LOL
“I usually ignore scientrollogist’s posts, but for any newbies, I will point out that the way he gets a positive trend since 1998 is by averaging in temperature increases which took place BEFORE 1998.”
He never has made a counter to my correcting his absurd positive warming trend since 1998 claim.The moron seems oblivious to the fact that 1998 is peak anomoly year and has been cooler ever since.
He is now trying hard to salvage that attempted lie with a barrage of B.S.
Is it any wonder why so many AGW believers are deficient debators?
dreamin, you thick fuck, read what I wrote. sunsettommy, you’re fucking braindead, you really are. The numbers you quote have nothing to do with running means. You’ve made a tit of yourself, again, and your bizarre attempts to pretend you haven’t only make you look more mentally deficient.
You obviously haven’t got the first clue about how to calculate a trend. Here’s a little exercise for you in which expect you’ll demonstrate once again just how pathetically stupid you are. Imagine that a certain variable, measured at times t=1,2,3,4,5 and 6 has values 6,1,2,3,4 and 5. What’s the trend you would derive from simple linear regression?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
You never did look in the link I provided.It explained all about it and also with many charts showing the obvious running mean.Only people who pretend to be a scientist can make off the cuff gaffes.Real scientists would have long ago understood what I am talking about.
The PEAK running means of three sources was posted right in front of your stupid face.Then I showed what the trends have been since the peak.They are all NEGATIVE.You have no excuse not knowing either because I posted the link to the source of the data.
The original reason why I posted them was to prove YOU wrong.To this point you never made a counterpoint against my irrefutable evidence that indeed.There has been a cooling trend since 1998.The very opposite of what you claimed.I posted proof of my claim and you never have.
It is obvious that you have no idea how far off the mark you are.You are full of wind and piss.You are mad because in my first comment in this thread.I conclusively proved you wrong and you have since then blustered like a little boy.
“Peak recorded anomaly”
If you can’t figure out what it means.You are too far gone.
Actually you already showed that you do not know what it means.I quote you:
“So what did you mean by using the words Peak recorded anomaly?”
It is obvious that something very simple is still too hard for you to figure out.
Keep right on making a total fool of yourself.
Remember this?
RSS
Peak recorded anomaly:
April, 1998: +0.90 °C
Current relative to peak recorded: -0.984 °C
Well here is the chart for the above.Showing the PEAK at +0.90 C and the obvious cooling trendline since then:
http://bp0.blogger.com/_0oNRupXJ4-A/R3J-D9a55JI/AAAAAAAAAKg/6Rdje5CdVNc/s1600-h/temp10years.png
If you had from the start looked at the link I provided.You could have saved yourself from making a total ass of yourself.
You fucking witless wanker. You didn’t show any trend at all. You don’t appear to know what a trend is. Last month’s anomaly, relative to a previous anomaly, does not constitute a trend. Here’s that simple question again that you apparently weren’t able to answer: Imagine that a certain variable, measured at times t=1,2,3,4,5 and 6 has values 6,1,2,3,4 and 5. What’s the trend you would derive from simple linear regression?
And obviously, being a retard, you completely failed to understand why I asked you what you meant when you said peak recorded anomaly. Here’s a recap for you:
You: UAH MSU
Peak recorded anomaly:
February, 1998: +0.76 °C
Current relative to peak recorded: -0.93 °C
Me: You draw a line from the warmest month on record to last month’s temperature, and you think that’s the climate trend?
You: I never stated they were the “warmest month on record”
Me: So what did you mean by using the words Peak recorded anomaly?
You: They were not the hottest month on record
So, you did not understand what data you were quoting. You failed even to understand that I was pointing this out to you. And you don’t even know what a trend is. You are embarrassing yourself with every post, and it’s very amusing to see. Carry on!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Still going to continue the “warmest month on record” lie.It is all your invention since nowhere does it state it is warmest month on record.That is what is making you look dumb.
What it clearly state is this, “Peak recorded anomaly”.
Meaning the high point of the temperature anomoly trendline.Since you have refused to look in the link.Where the chart shows the entire trendline from 1998-2007.You will continue to make absurd objection to something that does not even exist!
LOLOLOLOL.
They have very different meanings.
You are not worth any more replies on it.
You are doing this in the attempt to muddy the fact that long ago in this thread.You incorrectly claimed it was a warming trend from 1998-2007.That I corrected you over and ever since then.You whine like a little boy on side issues in the desperation of trying to get me to leave the main one.
The fact that you were wrong about the temperature trend of 1998-2007.
The amazing writing of “scientist”:
“Me: You draw a line from the warmest month on record to last month’s temperature, and you think that’s the climate trend?
You: I never stated they were the “warmest month on record”
Me: So what did you mean by using the words Peak recorded anomaly?
You: They were not the hottest month on record.”
Note how he at first stated that it was WARMEST MONTH ON RECORD.When no such phrase existed.He made this whole B.S. up.
Since I keep asking this person to look at the link.To show what the hell PEAK RECORDED ANOMOLY means.He never has looked.Thus making a complete fool of himself in the process.
Somehow this D- student seems to think the words “hottest month on record” and “Peak recorded anomoly” means the same thing.
ROFLMAO!
OK, so you don’t actually know what ‘peak recorded anomaly’ means. And you don’t know how to calculate trends. Here’s that simple question again, that you’ve ignored twice already: imagine that a certain variable, measured at times t=1,2,3,4,5 and 6 has values 6,1,2,3,4 and 5. What’s the trend you would derive from simple linear regression? Or, if you don’t understand the phrase ‘linear regression’, just tell me what you think the trend is in that data.
The trolls unsupported and incorrect comment.This is from the second comment of this thread:
“2. we have not seen any global warming trend over the last 10 years – here are the 10 year trends (1998-2007) in annual mean temperatures from the four most widely used global temperature measurements, with 9 year trends excluding the massive El Niño of 1998 in brackets. RSS: +0.02 (+0.27) °C/decade. UAH: +0.05 (+0.30) °C/decade. HadCRUT: +0.04 (+0.14) °C/decade. GISS: +0.18 (+0.30)°C/decade.”
Notice that the first line clearly makes a claim of NO warming trend in the last TEN YEARS.
“we have not seen any global warming trend over the last 10 years”
But troll post numbers that are wildly wrong and that he never posted the source to back them up.
“here are the 10 year trends (1998-2007) in annual mean temperatures from the four most widely used global temperature measurements, with 9 year trends excluding the massive El Niño of 1998 in brackets. RSS: +0.02 (+0.27) °C/decade. UAH: +0.05 (+0.30) °C/decade. HadCRUT: +0.04 (+0.14) °C/decade. GISS: +0.18 (+0.30)°C/decade.”
He argues that there has been a warming trend.Since I knew already that it is false and probably a deliberate distortion of the numbers ( I noticed that UAH numbers he posted is actually from the 1979-2007 trendline ).
I merely had the gall to contradict a supposed “scientist”.With a very different set of numbers.And by golly even gratitously posted a supporting link to them.
He has not once posted a counterpoint to it.He has not once stated that I was wrong in claiming that it is a cooling trend.
He then hypocritically right after posting false numbers writes:
“All those trends are positive.Your claim is a lie. Further, you obviously don’t understand the despite this, 10 years is not a long enough period over which to reliably calculate climate trends.”
One step at a time:
“All those trends are positive.” PROVEN FALSE
“Your claim is a lie.” HIS STATEMENT WAS PROVEN CORRECT.IT IS YOU WHO POSTED FALSE & UNSUPPORTED NUMBERS.
“Further, you obviously don’t understand the despite this, 10 years is not a long enough period over which to reliably calculate climate trends.”
CLASSIC STRAWMAN. HE NEVER CLAIMED THAT TEN YEARS WAS LONG ENOUGH.WHAT HE STATED and I quote: “we have not seen any global warming trend over the last 10 years”.
This is a statement of fact.He backed it up with a link to the chart that obviously shows a slight cooling trend ( http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/UAHMSUglobe.html ).A statement I supported by posting a rebuttal to your false and unsupported numbers.Also by posting a link to give you the opportunity to make a counter.You never did and that is why what you are doing now is a classic mark of trolling.
What he is doing is commonly considered trolling since he has ever since then been trying to push me into side issues in his desperate attempt to get me to leave the main one.
The main issue is about a 10 year trend.He stated incorrectly that it was a warming trend.I corrected him by showing that it was actually a COOLING trend.
That is reality and there is nothing you can do about it since it is well shown in this comments thread.
That is what drives you wild.You were so easily and conclusively corrected with a link that supported the COOLING temperature trend fact.That the writer originally and correctly wrote stating this well supported fact:
“we have not seen any global warming trend over the last 10 years”
The original rebuttal was apparently irrefutable!
You really need to stop destroying yourself with your deliberate distortions and trolling bullshit.
Scientist still desperately trying to get me off the track with this crap:
“OK, so you don’t actually know what ‘peak recorded anomaly’ means. And you don’t know how to calculate trends. Here’s that simple question again, that you’ve ignored twice already: imagine that a certain variable, measured at times t=1,2,3,4,5 and 6 has values 6,1,2,3,4 and 5. What’s the trend you would derive from simple linear regression? Or, if you don’t understand the phrase ‘linear regression’, just tell me what you think the trend is in that data.”
You are now in wide open trolling mode because the original discussion was all about whether a 10 year trend was a warming one or a cooling one.
Since you can’t rebute what I wrote.Concerning my link supported claim.That the 10 years in question was actually a cooling trend.Thus supporting the writers claim:
” we have not seen any global warming trend over the last 10 years”
as being correct.There is no warming and I further claimed that it is actually cooling.
You never rebutted it and that is a fact!
You go into this side issue about definitions.I will not bother falling for your obvious infantile and desperate crap.
It is obvious that YOU KNOW YOU WERE PROVEN WRONG!
What is the cause of your severe mental deficiencies? More interestingly, why are you apparently unaware of how stupid you are? The fact that last month’s temperature anomaly was not as large as the largest recorded does not mean that the temperature trend over the last ten years is down. If you really think that the numbers you quoted demonstrated a downward trend in temperatures, you’re seriously fucking stupid. You probably think that every 100m race in which the world record is not broken shows a downward trend in humanity’s ability to run fast.
For the fourth time, I’ll ask you this very simple question: imagine that a certain variable, measured at times t=1,2,3,4,5 and 6 has values 6,1,2,3,4 and 5. What’s the trend you would derive from simple linear regression?
From the link posted below.
Here is why I was successful:
“Two intellectually honest tactics
There are two intellectually-honest debate tactics:
1. revealing errors or omissions in your opponent’s facts
2. revealing errors or omissions in your opponent’s logic”
I did both by presenting a sourced rebuttal to his apparently false claim.
Since he never posted a direct counterpoint.I have already supported my claim in a satifactory manner.
His subsequent replies are simply prevaricating nonsense.
Excerpted from the link:
Written by by John T. Reed
Here is a list of the intellectually-dishonest debate tactics I have identified thus far. I would appreciate any help from readers to expand the list or to better define each tactic. I am numbering the list in order to refer back to it quickly elsewhere at this Web site.
1. Name calling: debater tries to diminish the argument of his opponent by calling the opponent a name that is subjective and unattractive; for example, cult members and bad real estate gurus typically warn the targets of their frauds that “dream stealers” will try to tell them the cult or guru is giving them bad advice; name calling is only intellectually dishonest when the name in question is ill defined or is so subjective that it tells the listener more about the speaker than the person being spoken about; there is nothing wrong with using a name that is relevant and objectively defined; the most common example of name calling against me is “negative;” in coaching, the critics of coaches are often college professors and the word “professor” is used as a name-calling tactic by the coaches who are the targets of the criticism in question; as a coach, I have been criticized as being “too intense,” a common put-down of successful youth and lower level high school coaches.
Sunsettommy says:
You pour out a lot of namecalling that are deliberately nasty.Maybe in a ratio of 20:1 ?
2. Changing the subject: debater is losing so he tries to redirect the attention of the audience to another subject area where he thinks he can look better relative to the person he is debating.
Sunsettommy says:
That is what you are doing now.Since I conclusively proved you wrong about your claim that it is a warming trend.
4. Citing irrelevant facts or logic: this is another form of tactic Number 2 changing the subject.
Sunsettommy says:
Yup you are now trying get me to discuss something else.Being entirely illogical in the process.With your absurd what does “Peak recorded anomaly” mean B.S. I actually answered anyway with link included.But you completely ignore it and continue the childish flogging over it.
This shows that not only you are illogical.But also irrational.
5. False premise: debater makes a statement that assumes some other fact has already been proven when it has not; in court, such a statement will be objected to by opposing counsel on the grounds that it “assumes facts not in evidence”.
Sunsettommy says:
Yup you tried to create something that does not exist: “WARMEST MONTH ON RECORD”.Out of this phrase “Peak recorded anomaly”
LOL
11. Vagueness: debater seems to cite facts or logic, but his terms are so vague that no facts or logic are present.
Sunsettommy says:
He tries to create something out of nothing as an attempt to get me away from the fact that I already disposed of his warming trend claim by using real evidence and posting a source to back them up.
He never posted anything that is real or supported.
I could go on showing that this dude is a hostily dishonest debator.
Here is the link showing how he is that way:
http://www.johntreed.com/debate.html
LOLOLOL,
I will no longer reply anymore of your baloney since you are no longer even on the original subject of whether it was a 10 year warming or cooling trend.
You claimed it was a warming trend .With absolutely no factual SOURCED evidence to support it.
The writer and myself provided sources showing that there is no warming trend since 1998 and even a now cooling trend is now evident.
Sunsettommy and writer 2
Hostile troll named scientist 0
Have a nice day troll.
What a prize fuckwit! Rarely do I see such utter boneheadedness. Most people so backward don’t attempt to discuss matter of science – they know they are incapable of it. You don’t and it’s very amusing. Peak recorded anomaly does indeed mean the warmest month on the record. It takes someone very special to not even understand that. A straight line between two data points, one of which is the highest recorded value, does not tell you the trend in the data. Did you do maths at school? Are you in fact still at school? If you understand how to calculate trends, you can very easily verify what I said at the beginning. Go and download the data, and work out a linear fit to the annual anomalies for the four data sets. Tell us what you get.
And surely you can answer this very very simple question: imagine that a certain variable, measured at times t=1,2,3,4,5 and 6 has values 6,1,2,3,4 and 5. What’s the trend you would derive from simple linear regression?
Can you even understand why I’m asking you this question?
What a dishonest cherrypicker ‘scientist’ is. He doesnt like the 2008 numbers because they dont give the numbers he wants, so he omits them and stops in 2007. Then he shows his ignorance of statistics by saying that because his cooked up numbers are positive, Warren is wrong. In fact Warren is right and the IPCC is wrong. Even ‘scientist’ cooked up numbers are way less than the IPCC prediction of 0.2 degrees/decade (except for the fiddled data by GISS data fraudster Jim Hansen).
‘Global warming’ is falsifiable, so the alarmist fanatics have abandoned this phrase in favor of the completely meaningless term ‘climate change’. That way they can never be proved wrong and any climate event can be blamed on man-made climate change. Fortunately the public are not stupid – people know when they are being conned.
What an idiot Samuel Pickwick is. He apparently thinks that you can already derive a figure for 2008’s temperature anomaly. He must not realise it’s only June. He also thinks that merely saying “the IPCC is wrong” is enough, and there is no need to quote any actual science. And he joins the massed ranks of climate idiots by thinking that ten year trends are useful data points in climate science. What a fuckwit.
Perhaps he would do us all a favour and calculate the trend derived using linear regression from the annual temperature anomalies measured by GISS, HadCRUT, RSS and UAH from 1998 to 2007. He will find that the numbers I quoted are correct. Then he can come back here, admit that he was talking shit and making a complete twat of himself, and then fuck off and learn some science.
The day you get banned is the day we see no more overt incivil crap from you.
I long for it to happen.
One reason I advocate “climate change” as a name is because you guys keep focusing on short-term wiggles in the global T graph.
see:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/imprecision-of-the-phrase-global-warming/
The core issue is that it is the radiative properties of the atmosphere that are changing, consistently, at an accelerating pace, to be more opaque to the infrared. The climate cannot stay the same. It’s excluded on fundamental physical grounds.
Most likely warming will be a big part of the response. Many people are willing to bet on it, on long enough time scales that the wiggles don’t matter. I, for one, expect bigger and bigger wiggles. So we’ll get brief surface cooling periods. But we won’t get periods when there isn’t extra energy in the system year over year, until we change our ways.
Temperature isn’t identical to energy, as I’m sure you know. Right now some of the extra energy appears to be going into latent heat as ice melts, for instance.