NASA and NOAA Confirm Global Temperature Standstill Continues

[cancel2 2022]

• Dr David Whitehouse

In a joint press conference NOAA and NASA have just released data for the global surface temperature for 2013. In summary they both show that the ‘pause’ in global surface temperature that began in 1997, according to some estimates, continues.

Statistically speaking there has been no trend in global temperatures over this period. All these years fall within each other’s error bars. The graphs presented at the press conference omitted those error bars.

When asked for an explanation for the ‘pause’ by reporters Dr Gavin Schmidt of NASA and Dr Thomas Karl of NOAA spoke of contributions from volcanoes, pollution, a quiet Sun and natural variability. In other words, they don’t know.

NASA has a temperature anomaly of 0.61 deg C above the average of 14.0 (1951 – 80) making it the 7th warmest year. Note that it is identical to 2003 and only 0.01 above 2009 and 2006. Taking into account the errors there has been no change since last year.

NOAA also has 2013 as the 4th warmest year, at 0.62 deg C above the global 20th century average of 13.9 deg C. Note that only 0.09 deg C separates their top ten warmest years.

Given that the IPCC estimates that the average decadal increase in global surface temperature is 0.2 deg C, the world is now 0.3 deg C cooler than it should have been.

http://www.thegwpf.org/nasa-noaa-confirm-global-temperature-standstill-continues/

 

[Riggins]

All that data - and that's the conclusion you reach? This just in...an overwhelming majority of the world's scientists agree, global warming is real.

 

[cancel2 2022]

All that data - and that's the conclusion you reach? This just in...an overwhelming majority of the world's scientists agree, global warming is real.

Michael Crichton said: “If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus.” Thales of Miletus, Abu Ali Ibn al Haytham, Newton, Einstein, Popper and Feynman thought much the same and said so. Science by head-count is mere politics.

Doran and Zimmerman (2009) and Anderegg et al. (2010) each concluded that 97% of a few dozen carefully-filtered climate scientists held Man guilty of some of the 0.7 Cº global warming since 1950.

Cook et al. (2013), in a recent me-too article in Environment Research Letters, conducted the largest-ever sensational epic blockbuster cast-of-thousands drama survey of scientific papers on climate change. They concluded that 97.1% of abstracts expressing an opinion on climate change endorsed the “scientific consensus”.

Here’s how they did it.

They examined 11,944 abstracts. But they arbitrarily threw out almost 8000 of them on the ground that they had not toed the Party Line by expressing the politically-correct opinion (or any opinion) on climate change.

Next, they ingeniously interchanged three separate versions of the imagined “scientific consensus”: that Man had caused some warming; that Man had caused most of the warming since 1950; and that man-made warming would be catastrophic unless the West were shut down and climate sceptics were put on trial – as the appalling James Hansen has suggested – for high crimes against humanity.

It was this last definition – in fact untested in Cook et al. or, as far as I know, in any other paper – that Mr Obama’s Twitteratus plumped for when he tweeted that 97% of scientists consider climate change not only real but “dangerous”.

The introduction to the Cook paper said that the survey was intended to examine the standard or IPCC “scientific consensus” that most of the warmer weather since 1950 was our fault.
The authors, having consigned 7930 abstracts to the Memory Hole because they had not parroted the Party Line, were left with 4014 abstracts. They marked just 64 of them, or 1.6% of the 4014 abstracts, as endorsing the standard version of “scientific consensus”.

Further examination by Legates et al. (2013) showed that only 41 of the 64 abstracts, or 1.0% of the 4014 abstracts expressing an opinion on the Party Line, or just 0.3% of the original 11,944 abstracts, had said Yes to the standard version of consensus.


Read more: http://joannenova.com.au/2013/09/monckton-honey-i-shrunk-the-consensus/

 

[Riggins]

Monckton and the other deniers went looking for any scrap of "evidence" they could find that would support their personal biases. The deniers have made up their minds that the theory of human-caused global warming is crap AND THEN went about hunting for anything they could find to substantiate that bias - if you go looking for dirt, you're going to find dirt.

All of this talk from Monckton and the rest about the "consensus" as they try and chip away semantically at what thousands of climatologists have said and who agrees with who, etc - instead of looking at the science itself. All of these idiots are using whatever means they can to discredit a scientific theory without going ahead and carrying out the same research and experiments that originally led to the theory of human-caused warming in the first place.

Global warming came about from rigorous, peer-reviewed research done using the scientific method - meaning the research was done, then repeated - multiple times. The deniers would have a lot more credibility if they stuck to the science, conducted research and performed experiments using the scientific method, and repeatedly and unequivocally showed everyone where those original climatologists erred. Anything short of that is just cherry-picking, and trying to use semantics and bogus statistics to poke holes in research they're not willing nor able to conduct themselves. Maybe they're afraid of what they'll find if they allow science to do the talking instead of their preconceived biases.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Monckton and the other deniers went looking for any scrap of "evidence" they could find that would support their personal biases. The deniers have made up their minds that the theory of human-caused global warming is crap AND THEN went about hunting for anything they could find to substantiate that bias - if you go looking for dirt, you're going to find dirt.

All of this talk from Monckton and the rest about the "consensus" as they try and chip away semantically at what thousands of climatologists have said and who agrees with who, etc - instead of looking at the science itself. All of these idiots are using whatever means they can to discredit a scientific theory without going ahead and carrying out the same research and experiments that originally led to the theory of human-caused warming in the first place.

Global warming came about from rigorous, peer-reviewed research done using the scientific method - meaning the research was done, then repeated - multiple times. The deniers would have a lot more credibility if they stuck to the science, conducted research and performed experiments using the scientific method, and repeatedly and unequivocally showed everyone where those original climatologists erred. Anything short of that is just cherry-picking, and trying to use semantics and bogus statistics to poke holes in research they're not willing nor able to conduct themselves. Maybe they're afraid of what they'll find if they allow science to do the talking instead of their preconceived biases.

Argument from authority is the first line of defence for people like you. You need to understand the asymmetry between proposing a theory and refuting one. To propose a theory about climate you need to cobble together a vast number of different disciplines and produce a consistent result. To destroy such a theory you can be as ignorant as you like about most of the theory but simply be able to produce a single flaw, this is the principle of falsifiability. You could say to me that all swans are white, yet it is logically possible to falsify it by simply observing a single black swan.

Aristotle claimed objects fall with a speed proportional to their weight. This was accepted for nearly two thousand years until Galileo disproved it with a simple experiment. Anyone could do the experiment, so why did the world believe Aristotle for so long? I assume it’s the “taboo” of arguing with the authority. Even Galileo got himself into trouble with the authority of the Catholic Church, and it took them 500 years to admit Galileo was right.


I see that I will have to show the graph yet again. It is a little out of date as there hasn't actually been any statistically significant warming for 17 years.

 

[Riggins]

A bunch of words and a graph does not negate the in-depth field research conducted around the world by so many climate scientists.

Galileo could disprove Aristotle's theory because he was scientifically qualified to do so. I'm waiting for a large consensus from unbiased genuine climate scientists, i.e. those actually qualified to disprove the theory of human-caused global warming (and NOT being paid by energy companies) to step forward and do so by replicating the research formerly carried out and reaching altogether opposite or 'disproving' results - failing that, the rest is just much ado about nothing and no reason to deny the prevailing theory as it stands. There's real science, and then there's just noise.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Monckton and the other deniers went looking for any scrap of "evidence" they could find that would support their personal biases. The deniers have made up their minds that the theory of human-caused global warming is crap AND THEN went about hunting for anything they could find to substantiate that bias - if you go looking for dirt, you're going to find dirt.

This is pure irony... not to mention comical. It is the man made global warming fearmongers that designed their studies to prove man was the primary driver. Their funding depends upon this outcome. They have made up their mind that man is the primary cause of the warming that occurred in the latter part of the century. Their disciples are the ones that refuse to consider any data that goes contrary to their religious beliefs.

Perhaps you can explain... IF man is the primary driver (via CO2) of global warming, then why have we not seen any significant warming in the past 17 years? CO2 has continued rising... why then is warming not continuing? why are we stuck at these levels?

Global warming came about from rigorous, peer-reviewed research done using the scientific method - meaning the research was done, then repeated - multiple times. The deniers would have a lot more credibility if they stuck to the science, conducted research and performed experiments using the scientific method, and repeatedly and unequivocally showed everyone where those original climatologists erred. Anything short of that is just cherry-picking, and trying to use semantics and bogus statistics to poke holes in research they're not willing nor able to conduct themselves. Maybe they're afraid of what they'll find if they allow science to do the talking instead of their preconceived biases.

LOL... except that isn't what happened.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

A bunch of words and a graph does not negate the in-depth field research conducted around the world by so many climate scientists.
.

Lets start with the term 'climate scientist'... could you elaborate as to what SCIENCE classes these 'climate scientists' take that distinguishes them from a meteorologist?

 

[cancel2 2022]

THE Sun’s activity has plummeted to a century low, baffling scientists and possibly heralding a new mini-Ice Age.

"I've been a solar physicist for 30 years, and I've never seen anything quite like this," Richard Harrison, head of space physics at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Oxfordshire, told the BBC. "If you want to go back to see when the Sun was this inactive... you've got to go back about 100 years," he said.

The lull is particularly surprising because the Sun has reached its solar maximum, the point in its 11-year cycle where activity is at its peak. The lacklustre climax also follows a solar minimum – the period when the Sun’s activity troughs – that was longer and lower than had been anticipated. Mike Lockwood, professor of space environment physics at the University of Reading, told the BBC there was a significant chance that the Sun could become increasingly quiet.

He compared the current circumstances to the latter half of the 17th Century, when the sun went through an extremely quiet phase referred to as the Maunder Minimum.
That era of solar inactivity coincided with bitterly cold winters to Europe, where the Baltic Sea and London's River Thames froze over. Conditions were so harsh that some described it as a mini-Ice Age.

Solar lull... The Sun hasn't been this quiet in 100 years, scientists say. Picture: NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory

Prof Lockwood says we may see a repeat if the Sun continues to dip, positing that the results would be dominantly felt in Europe due to the flow of an air current in the upper atmosphere that can drive the weather. "It's a very active research topic at the present time, but we do think there is a mechanism in Europe where we should expect more cold winters when solar activity is low," he said.

http://www.news.com.au/technology/s...s-to-century-low/story-fnjwlcze-1226805090679