Top MIT scientist: Newest UN climate report Hilariously flawed

[SoCal 420]

The Associated Press obtained documents that show the Obama administration and some European governments pressured UN climate scientists to downplay or even omit data that shows the world hasn’t warmed in over a decade.

“Germany called for the reference to the slowdown to be deleted, saying a time span of 10-15 years was misleading in the context of climate change, which is measured over decades and centuries,”

A top climate scientist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology lambasted a new report by the UN’s climate bureaucracy that blamed mankind as the main cause of global warming and whitewashed the fact that there has been a hiatus in warming for the last 15 years.​

“I think that the latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence,” Dr. Richard Lindzen told Climate Depot, a global warming skeptic news site. “They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase.”​

​

​

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/29/top-mit-scientist-un-climate-report-is-hilariously-flawed/#ixzz2gsBHDAlR​

​

http://libertyunyielding.com/2013/0...es-warming-stoppage-because-of-govt-pressure/​

​

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...xplain-Earths-barely-got-hotter-15-years.html​

Richard Siegmund Lindzen (born February 8, 1940) is an American atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lindzen is known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides and ozone photochemistry. He has published more than 200 scientific papers and books.[1] He was a lead author of Chapter 7, 'Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,' of the IPCC Third Assessment Report on climate change. He is a well known skeptic of the scientific consensus about climate change[2] and critic of what he states are political pressures on climate scientists to conform to what he has called Climate Alarmism.[3]

 

[deepthought]

The UN is hilariously flawed.

Actually, it isn't hilarious. More like terrifying.

 

[Theoneandonly Z]

Sucks to think that the only hope for this planet is a global disaster that puts our population in check... ever since Joe Rogan described mankind as a thriving bacteria destroying everything we touch, I've hated people... moving to so cal didn't help me by any means...

 

[SoCal 420]

Sucks to think that the only hope for this planet is a global disaster that puts our population in check... ever since Joe Rogan described mankind as a thriving bacteria destroying everything we touch, I've hated people... moving to so cal didn't help me by any means...

Met him A few times (Joe Rogan) through my M.M.A. Trainer / Friend / U.F.C Fight Judge... He is WAY Smarter / Deeper than people give him credit for. First thing that came to mind was "Isolation Tank" and "Trans dermal THC Patches" (Yeah, He Had Them)... ;)

 

[Cort]

Hollywood has him beat.

I for one think there are far too many humans on the earth. Too many who produce nothing but offspring and too many who seek nothing but profit. Everything must find a balance.

We, as humans, a certainly not helping Mother Earth by burning, building and cutting down everything in sight but nature is cyclic. There have been far warmer times and far cooler times than ours. I have a feeling its mostly about money. Some scientists want to keep getting paid, some want to invent the next big thing to prevent global cooling global warming climate change, some politicians want to keep the bribes flowing from the corporations who profit from new laws and new climate studies.

 

[SoCal 420]

All good points Cort but when you make nothing more than an "Observation" by looking at the Exact Same Data that "Everybody See's" and can't Profit from that simple observation, and it All says "The Earth Has Been Cooling for the past 15 years what is more likely? We All have to Drive Prius Cars and Switch to Solar and not Use any Fossil Fuels or 15 years from now We'll walk outside and Light on Fire Like Al Gore Already Predicted or Scientists Just Cant Predict Global Climate With A Computer Simulation and they "Don't Know" if Climate will continue to Cool or be Warmer in 15 Years??? Like Germany said in the statement above 15 Years is "misleading in the context of climate change" so the Point that is being posed here is even by science / Germany's Own Words... 15 Years from Now, Weather it's Cooler or Warmer doesn't matter because Climate is measured over Decades and Centuries... So Lay of the Gloom and Doom Al Gore and all you Over Zealous Environmentalists, the data is "Against" you at this point in time... When more Fossil Fuel is being used than Any Other Time in History :blackeye:

Al Gore's 2007 prediction that all arctic ice would be gone by 2014 now proven to be alarming fear mongering

(NaturalNews) Hey, don't look now, but former Vice President Al Gore, whose championing of "global warming" and "climate change" has made him fabulously wealthy, has been lying to you all along about just serious the "danger" is from these manufactured global "crises."

Because the process has been co-opted by hard Left progressives, Gore was given a Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for his yeoman work in promoting "solutions" to the phony problem of global warming (remember, President Obama was given one just months after taking office, though he'd yet to do anything to advance the cause of "peace," save for a delivering a few speeches apologizing for America's past greatness).

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/042074_al_gore_global_warming_predictions.html##ixzz2gyC0A8R6​

http://www.naturalnews.com/042074_al_gore_global_warming_predictions.html##ixzz2gyBOPjO6​

 

[geologic]

=================================================================

The April 30, 2012 New York Times article included the comments of several other experts. Christopher S. Bretherton, an atmospheric researcher at the University of Washington, said Lindzen is "feeding upon an audience that wants to hear a certain message, and wants to hear it put forth by people with enough scientific reputation that it can be sustained for a while, even if it’s wrong science. I don’t think it’s intellectually honest at all." Kerry A. Emanuel, another M.I.T. scientist, said of Lindzen's views "Even if there were no political implications, it just seems deeply unprofessional and irresponsible to look at this and say, ‘We’re sure it’s not a problem.’ It’s a special kind of risk, because it’s a risk to the collective civilization."

A 1996 New York Times article included the comments of several other experts. Jerry
Mahlman , director of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, did not accept Lindzen's assessment of the science, and said that Lindzen had "sacrificed his luminosity by taking a stand that most of us feel is scientifically unsound." Mahlman did, however, admit that Lindzen was a "formidable opponent." William Gray of Colorado State University basically agreed with Lindzen, describing him as "courageous." He said, "A lot of my older colleagues are very skeptical on the global warming thing." He added that whilst he regarded some of Lindzen's views as flawed, he said that, "across the board he's generally very good." John Wallace of the University of Washington agreed with Lindzen that progress in climate change science had been exaggerated, but said there are "relatively few scientists who are as skeptical of the whole thing as Dick [Lindzen] is."

Lindzen has been characterized as a contrarian, in relation to climate change and other issues. Lindzen's graduate students describe him as "fiercely intelligent, with a deep contrarian streak."

The previously-cited New York Times article said that "at gatherings of climate change skeptics... Dr. Lindzen has been treated as a star", but that in the view of "the scientific majority... he has gone beyond any reasonable reading of the evidence to provide a dangerous alibi for inaction."--
Wiki...

 

[SoCal 420]

The following was also "Pulled" from Wiki... With the exception of a few protected pages, every page has an "Edit " tab which lets you edit the page you are looking at. It is Wikipedia's most basic feature, and allows you to make corrections and add facts to articles... or Not ;)

Like mentioned A Few times in the posting the 30 year span of time your charts reference are "Nothing" in the big picture. Temperatures have been "Cycling" on A far more predictable basis than the "Alarmist" forecasts of Global warming by NASA and NOAA... @ least 50 articles with "Scientific" evidence and references...

HERE>>>> http://www.c3headlines.com/sunsolarcosmicoscillationorbital-cycles/

This is One study that shows the correlation of Solar Warming & Cooling Cycles and Global Temp... Imagine that, Sun "HOT" = Global Temp Rises... Sun "COOL" Global Temps Decrease... Who Would Have Ever Thought... that periods Nearer and Farther from the Sun along with "Predictable" and Historically Documented & Proven Solar Activity could affect "Temperature on Earth" :woot: :woot: :woot:

Peer Reviewed Study: Increased Solar Flux Drove Global Warming During 20th Century

New research published in 2011 & 2012 continues to build on a major 1999 study that found increased sun activity (solar flux, etc.) is a significant cause of modern global warming

While reviewing the bounty of solar and climate information found at the Global Warming Science site, we found the adjacent chart (this is the 'C3' revised version using annual HadCRUT global temperatures instead of monthly).
Clearly, there is a strong relationship between solar activity (magnetic solar flux) and global temperatures.
The relationship is not perfect but it represents a significant improvement over the incredibly lame human-CO2 and global warming / climate change relationship claimed by the IPCC's anti-CO2 Climategate scientists and alarmists.
Read here. From the original 1999 study:

"The solar wind, because it is an extended ionized gas of very high electrical conductivity, drags some magnetic flux out of the Sun, thereby filling the heliosphere with the weak interplanetary magnetic field. Magnetic reconnection - the merging of oppositely-directed magnetic fields such that they become connected to each other - between the interplanetary field and the Earth's magnetic field, allows energy from the solar wind to enter the near-Earth environment. The Sun's properties, such as its luminosity, are related to its magnetic field, though the connections are as yet not well understood. Moreover, changes in the heliospheric magnetic field have been linked with changes in total cloud cover over the Earth, which may influence global climate change. Here we report that the measurements of the near-Earth interplanetary magnetic field reveal that the total magnetic field leaving the sun has risen by a factor 1.4 since 1964." [M. Lockwood, R. Stamper, and M.N. Wild 1999: Nature]​

Read here. From a 1999 review of this study:

"The authors examined measurements of near-earth interplanetary magnetic field to determine the total magnetic flux leaving the sun since 1868...authors were able to show that the total magnetic flux leaving the sun has risen by a factor of 1.41 over the period 1964-1996. Surrogate measurements of the interplanetary magnetic field previous to this time indicate that this parameter has increased by a factor of 2.3 since 1901...results of this study lead us to wonder just how much of the reported 0.6°C global temperature rise of the last century might be a result of the more than two-fold increase in the total magnetic solar flux over that period. We may now, at long last, be moving closer than ever in our effort to understand the importance of the sun in driving 20th century climate change."​

Previous solar-climate and peer-reviewed postings. Solar/cosmic temperature charts.

 

[SoCal 420]

Here is "One More" (from link "posted" above) I found Interesting... ;)

Obama's EPA Jihad Against CO2 Just Took A Mortal Hit - New Research Indicates Global Warming Not The Fault Of Coal Industry

Obama's green fundamentalists took control over the EPA and have since been on a jihad to destroy the coal industry and other fossil fuel sectors - but like so many religious fanatics, Obama's extremists ignore the actual science

(click image to enlarge, source)

​

Read here. As has been clearly demonstrated with empirical evidence, recent global warming (or lack of) is not the result of increasing atmospheric CO2 levels.
So, if CO2 is not the principal driver of global temperature changes, then what is?
The adjacent chart is a plot of daytime high temperatures and solar radiation. The very visible close relationship between solar energy and the maximum temperatures is very obvious, and is irrefutable - it's the sun, stupid!
With most scientists now recognizing that the jihad against CO2 emissions was not really supportable by the empirical evidence, new scientific efforts are being conducted to determine what are the major factors influencing global warming/cooling. And, the solar influence now appears to be the major culprit.
In the realm of the political climate, both Romney and Ryan should be constantly bashing Obama and the Democrats over their destruction of the coal industry, and the anti-science green, fanatic jihad unleashed on the American economy. Driving the coal industry to bankruptcy and curtailing oil drilling across the U.S. was a completely needless hatchet attack on economic growth by Obama's EPA.

 

[geologic]

How to use short timeframes to distort reality: a guide to cherrypicking

Cherrypicking is the practice, widespread amongst climate change contrarians, of carefully selecting particular points in the noisy short-term climate datasets and using them to show 'trends' that are not representative of the true situation. The huge global surface air temperature spike that accompanied the monster El Nino of 1997-98 is thus chosen as the starting point for the "no warming in 17 15 16 years" that you may read in internet comment-threads below climate stories (the number varies, apparently at random, from commentator to commentator). This year we have seen the Arctic sea-ice melting season once again reported by contrarians as a recovery, although as the graph below, from the National Snow and Ice Data Center, clearly shows, there have been a number of 'recoveries' in previous years too. The long-term trend, as shown by the dotted trendline, is downwards.

No suprises there. It shows a typical UK winter and spring, doesn't it? A chilly January, a colder February, a nice mild March followed by a disappointing April then a warmer but not especially hotter trend through May, June and July (2012 will be remembered in the UK for its awful wet summer).
We can even fit a trendline (red dotted line) to the data and, indeed, it shows that despite the ups and downs, the trend from winter to summer is that it gets warmer:

But how would we go about it if we wanted for some silly reason or other to show that it gets colder in the Northern Hemisphere instead? Well, the first thing to do would be to look for a short-term cooling trend, and we have one, from January into February: so we focus entirely on that, ditching everything else, and voila!

Let's fit a trendline to that and extrapolate. Hey Presto! there will be blizzards instead of heatwaves and by the start of the Summer Recess of the House of Commons, ice floes will be coming down the Thames past the Houses of Parliament!

Looks daft, doesn't it? But that, dear readers, is exactly what cherrypicking can accomplish. Unfortunately for the contrarians, in this case it starts warming again into March, but the cooler April gives them another shot at making the same claim, before the May-July warming renders the tactic unusable. Never mind: they can move onto some other argument for a while and then it'll be time for the autumn-winter cooling trend - party-time! At that point, you will very likely hear, "look at all that sea-ice that's forming in the Arctic!", as if it was something new and unusual (it isn't), or, "look at that snow! And they told us we were warming!", as if anybody had even remotely suggested that climate change will make the seasons come to a crashing halt.
Thus, if you come across someone saying or writing things about trends that appear to wildly contradict mainstream science, be they talking about Arctic sea-ice, surface air temperatures or whatever, carefully check their starting point. Was there anything unusual about it? Think of the noise factor: was it particularly big or particularly small? With a bit of practise, cherrypicking is easy to spot, and as illustrated above, it really can be used to claim the impossible.
The global warming signal itself is a multidecadal feature of the climate, but just like the seasonal example above, it has been possible at times to take one period of one temperature record - surface air temperatures in most cases - and do a 'January-February' job with it, thereby making the claim that temperatures are flatlining or even cooling. This tactic works (so far as the contrarians are concerned), of course, until the next record warm year occurs, at which point they have to start out again. However, one may also expect a proportion of them, at that point, to direct their firepower on the temperature-record itself, claiming it is all wrong somehow - yes, the very same temperature record that they had previously been using to 'show' that "global warming had stalled"!
On the bigger scale of things, then, taking carefully-selected bits of the temperature-record that are way too short to be anything but noise, and using them to try and pretend that global warming has stopped, is such a popular contrarian trick that we illustrated it with 'The Escalator': [the "how skeptics view v. how realists view .gifs"]
http://www.skepticalscience.com/cherrypicking-guide.html

=========================================
> Al Gore makes money from: yadda, yadda, yadda...
<Which of Lindzen's paychecks is bigger:
the one from MIT--
or the one(s) from the koch brothers..

 

[geologic]

Though the sun is currently in the peak year of its 11-year solar weather cycle, our closest star has been rather quiet over all, scientists say.

This year's solar maximum is shaping up to be the weakest in 100 years and the next one could be even more quiescent, scientists said Thursday (July 11).

"It's the smallest maximum we've seen in the Space Age," David Hathaway of NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., told reporters in a teleconference.

http://www.space.com/21937-sun-solar-weather-peak-is-weak.html

=============================================================

Feulner and Rahmstorf (2010) examined the impact on global warming if the sun fell into a Grand Solar Minimum. The global mean temperature difference is shown for the time period 1900 to 2100 for the IPCC A2 emissions scenario (relative to zero for the average temperature during the years 1961 to 1990). The red line shows predicted temperature change for the current level of solar activity, the blue line shows predicted temperature change for solar activity at the much lower level of the Maunder Minimum, and the black line shows observed temperatures from the NASA GISS dataset through 2010. The authors found that the average global surface temperature would be diminished by no more than 0.3°C due to the lower solar activity, which would offset only a small fraction of human-caused global warming.--
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=21 ...

 

[SoCal 420]

So, Lets just Cut to the Chase... You "Believe" Human Activity since the Industrial Revolution until current has produced the "Highest Carbon Levels in the Atmosphere and Hottest Temp Increase in the History of this Planet and We are "All" Doomed if We don't buy A Toyota Prius and quit using Fossil Fuel and Implement A "New" Obama Carbon Tax??? Interesting... but You may be the One Cherry Picking Data my friend. Do A Little Research "Farther Back" and Tell me Carbon Levels Have "Never Been Higher" and "Temperatures Never Hotter" and Show Me the Dr's, Physicists and Charts (PROOF) that NASA, GISS, NOAA Prediction Models / A program wrote by Men to Tell the Future :woot: are True and Can Accurately Predict the Future. I'll Wait...


P.S.
The longest continuous temperature record is the Hadley Centre's Central England Temperature series. It starts around 1800. and What Does it Say...A Temperature "Decrease" in the Past 15 Years... Just Like the Opening Post. Imagine That ;)
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/index.html

Weather balloon temperature measurements become useable by about 1958.

Satellite measurements had started by 1980.

The longest useful record of carbon dioxide concentrations is from Mauna Loa, Hawaii, and was started by Charles Keeling in about 1958.

Global Warming, Climate Change Disaster In Hawaii - Human CO2 Causes Sea Levels To Decline!

The IPCC predicted that sea levels would rise to dangerous levels from CO2-induced climate change - satellite data for Hawaii and a new peer reviewed study eviscerates the IPCC's catastrophic global warming hysteria

Observations of sunspots and maritime records go back further.

The longest high-precision paleoclimate record are the EPICA ice cores. They give us an idea of carbon dioxide levels and temperature levels going back about 600,000 years.

That's a great unbiased fact set. I no longer believe that the data showing global warming has been compiled long enough or in an efficient manner to be empirical. But you can try...
By your Very Words... 200 Years Give or Take is "Cherry Picking" brother...

 

[geologic]

Ha Ha Ha!!!
You agree with me--
and post a perfect example of cherry-picking propoganda...

 

[SoCal 420]

Because you Can Draw A Green Line??? LOL See the "Definition" @ the "Left" of the Graph? That "Red" line is A 30 Year over lay on top of 200 years... It only shows that "Temperature has Fluctuated" over the last 200 Years Up & Down and is Normal... (use the "Link" provided) What does the Tail End of the Graph show? Temperature going Down... for the Past 15 Years Like I Said. If Rising CO2 Causes Global Warming Why is the Temperature Falling Hmmmm??? Massive "Early Snow Storms" in Central U.S.??? and... The Oceans Cooling What, What??? Here is Page 1 Google Search of "Ocean Cooling Trend" that "All" the Agencies "You" mentioned (Including skepticalscience.com that you Seem to Favor) are Crapping Their Selves..."Tryin' to Splain it Away" LOL because it Don't Jive With the "Model" Prediction. Notice "All The Hurricanes" This year... Oh, Wait, there wasn't Shit (Predicted to be "Severe" this year) because the Waters are "Cooling"...
Have A Good One ;) Burrrr... Gettin' Chilli Out... Damb Global Warming :woot:

Scholarly articles for ocean cooling trend
Warming of the world ocean, 1955–2003 - ‎Levitus - Cited by 755
… formation of the Isthmus of Panama on Atlantic Ocean … - ‎Haug - Cited by 517
Explanations of the Tertiary global cooling trend - ‎Barron - Cited by 114
Search Results

1. Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists ...
   
   www.telegraph.co.uk › Earth › Environment › Climate Change
   Sep 8, 2013 - There has been a 29 per cent increase in the amount of ocean ... period similar to that from 1965 to 1975, when there was a clear cooling trend.
2. Does ocean cooling prove global warming has ended?
   
   www.skepticalscience.com/cooling-oceans.htm‎
   Aug 1, 2013 - Interestingly, they use the ocean heat data with the erroneous 2003 cooling trend (see Figure 5.1). Josh Willis writes a good overview of the ...
3. Pacific cooling explains break in global warming, study shows - U.S. ...
   
   usnews.nbcnews.com/_.../20233989-pacific-cooling-explains-break-in-g...‎
   Aug 28, 2013 - OSLO — A natural cooling of the Pacific Ocean explains what is likely to ... show the cooling trend associated with a La Niña weather pattern in ...
4. C3: Global Cooling: Data/Evidence/Trends
   
   www.c3headlines.com/global-cooling-dataevidencetrends/‎
   Sep 20, 2013 - Since Obama's election, oceans have been cooling, per NOAA, at a .... The above four NOAA charts depict those cooling trends across the a ...
5. Global Cooling is Here | Global Research
   
   www.globalresearch.ca/global-cooling-is-here/10783‎
   Sep 29, 2013 - Evidence for Predicting Global Cooling for the Next Three Decades ... of global warming and cooling, on a general rising trend from the Little Ice Age. ... Oscillation curve showing warming and cooling of the Pacific Ocean that ...
6. U.N. Report Authors Struggle With Global Cooling Trend - News ...
   
   www.theintelligencer.net/.../U-N--Report-Authors-Struggle-With-Global-...‎
   Sep 20, 2013 - U.N. Report Authors Struggle With Global Cooling Trend. Climate change believers say the heat is being locked in oceans. September 20 ... (Hidden by Planet Earth Deep in the Ocean to "Make Them Look Bad" :woot: )
7. Cooler Pacific Ocean May Explain Climate Change Paradox ...
   
   www.livescience.com/39250-global-warming-pacific-cooling.html‎
   Aug 28, 2013 - Cooling sea-surface temperatures in the tropical Pacific Ocean — a ... a warm phase, the long-term trends in global warming, including more ...
8. Cooling Pacific has dampened global warming, research shows ...
   
   www.theguardian.com › Environment › Climate change‎
   Aug 28, 2013 - Cooling waters in the tropical Pacific Ocean appear to be a major factor ... global average surface temperatures, while still on an upward trend, ...
9. Global 'cooling': how will the IPCC explain 15-year warming hiatus?
   
   www.rtcc.org/.../global-cooling-how-will-the-ipcc-explain-15-y...‎
   by Sophie Yeo
   Sep 23, 2013 - This demonstrates the necessity of looking at longer term trends, ... El Nino conditions transferring heat from the oceans to the atmosphere.
10. NASA - Short-Term Ocean Cooling Suggests Global Warming ...
    
    www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/.../HQ_06318_Ocean_Cooling.html‎
    Sep 21, 2006 - Short-Term Ocean Cooling Suggests Global Warming 'Speed Bump' ... trends are not always steady in their effects on ocean temperatures.

 

[geologic]

What does the Tail End of the Graph show? Temperature going Down... for the Past 15 Years Like I Said.

I just checked, to make sure, and yep: I don't live in Central England; and most other folks don't, either. They live in different locations around the planet, and have different temperatures. Central England may have the longest temperature records of anywhere on the planet (howbout that upward trend...) making it the oldest temperature monitoring station on the planet, which makes it watt: the best temperature monitoring station on the planet??? And we should use it for the average temperature of the entire planet--
watt, me worry???

Burrrr... Gettin' Chilli Out... Damb Global Warming :woot:

Yawl really need to learn the difference between weather--
and climate...

 

[SoCal 420]

Yep, Rocket Science there ^^^^ So Lets just "Throw Out" the longest standing Data on the Planet because it "Don't Come from Where I Live" (It's Called "Global Warming" Not Warming Where I Live) Then Where are We at... Back @ the Beginning, The "Model" of Global Warming is Just That, A Model Created by A Man / Men to Support "His / Their" Climate Alarmism "View" of Global Warming with "No Data to Support or Discredit their Claim" You Call That Scientific Proof??? :woot: Long Trending Weather Patterns = Climate... Are you Attempting to state Central England has neither Weather or Climate and therefor "Their Data" is useless or What? As for "You" Worrying...
Don't, You Won't Burst Into Flames if You Walk Outside due to "Global Warming" any time Soon because Weather / Climate Appears to be Cooling from Recent and Verifiable Data...
Have A Good One ;)

NASA - What's the Difference Between Weather and Climate?
www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html‎
In short, climate is the description of the long-term pattern of weather in a particular area.

 

[geologic]

Yep, Rocket Science there ^^^^ So Lets just "Throw Out" the longest standing Data on the Planet because it "Don't Come from Where I Live" (It's Called "Global Warming" Not Warming Where I Live)
Long trending Weather Patterns = Climate... Are you Attempting to state Central England has neither Weather or Climate and therefor "Their Data" is useless or What?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[real cute to provide links to government sites that yer winger buddies have shut down]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Central England's nice an all, but did you miss the GLOBAL temperature graph of "How realists view global warming"??? Interesting how that red line kinda matches the green line that you made fun of in yer Central England graph.

I never said to "Throw Out" anything, and as a matter of fact,
you provided a great service when you posted that Central England graph.
Luckly, you forgot to only show the last 15 years like watts that guy's name and the rest of the (no)heartland koch heads do; and you unintentionally provided the best and longest example of the upward temperature trend--
which looks a lot like over 200 years of Central England <somekinda> Warming...

 

[slumdog80]

Great thread. So does this mean I do not have to feel badly about my carbon foot print????

 

[deepthought]

Ha Ha Ha!!!
You agree with me--
and post a perfect example of cherry-picking propoganda...
View attachment 343909

This example seems to indicate an increase in warming/temperature, as far as I can tell.

It shows a fairly steady rise and fall of temperatures until about 1900. From 1900-1920, following the pattern there should have been a drop but there isn't. (IE the pattern changes) Then from 1920 to 1960 the rise and fall is at least half that of previous, and mostly above the 0.0 C "middle line". Still no drop/little drop between 1960-1980 and then after 1980 a huge increase/spike in temperature.

Granted, just after 2000 there is a decline that continues until the end of the data shown, but this decline is also above the 0.0 C middle line. (showing that the rise and fall has now shifted about 1 degree C UP, in at least as far as what is shown, 1980-2000+).

So, again, this would seem to be evidence of global warming (whether or not caused by humans).


Not trying to make an argument for or against global warming, just trying to interpret the data on the graph shown, and I would have to say the data seems to support geologic's argument.

 

[geologic]

The funniest part is--
I wouldn't have even bothered posting in this thread if it wasn't for the Al Gore bashing...