Whenever a skeptic makes the cherry picked misleading and incorrect claim that there has been no increase in global temperatures for the last 15 years I'll post this image to set the record straight.



http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022

For someone that claims they accept the peer reviewed science on AGW your posts sure do contradict that claim.

You're full of wild conspiracy theories with nought to back them up.

I think the skeptics will use this paper to their own ends and it will set paleo back a number of years if it goes unchallenged. I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor, a well-known skeptic in NZ. A CRU person is on the board but papers get dealt with by the editor assigned by Hans von Storch.

This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that — take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…

If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted.

I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out somehow-even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!

I wanted you guys to know that you're free to use RC in any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through.... We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you'd like us to include.

[T]hink of RC as a resource that is at your disposal.... We'll use our best discretion to make sure the skeptics don't get to use the RC comments as a megaphone.

You mean the adjustments done by Tamino/Grant Foster ??


What could possibly go wrong with that.


Actually, there are many of them.

One of the problems in Foster et al 2011 is the way the solar cycle influence was handled. First he used the PMOD Composite data which uses satelite instruments that are known to be suffering from degradation. Noone is using this anymore - (except for people who want to distort the record). They are trying to fix it but haven't got that done yet. It has a spurious decline of about 0.5 W/m2 (half a solar cycle) in the recent years which means that the warming trend in the last 5 years is more upwards from what it really should be.

Secondly, when you do a regression of the PMOD composite or any TSI data against the temperature record for 1979 to 2010, you end up with a Negative Coefficient - the opposite to that expected. Normally that would cause one to drop the signal or try to figure out some other way to account for it. Tamino just Inverted the sign instead. Yes.

And then there is no natural ocean cycles such as the AMO or the PDO in this reconstruction. What? Everyone including climate scientists themselves think these are geniune cycles. he included the ENSO in his reconstruction but not the AMO or PDO. Tamino even included the AMO in his basic dataset but then decided against using it because the warming trend gets cut by two-thirds.

So it is not "adjusted temperatures", it is just Foster-Propaganda designed to have an influence on gullible people.

So go on using since it was meant for people who like their temperature lines going up but don't for a minute think it is accurate.

*Yawn* A couple of guys behaving badly and you tar the entire global scientific community with the same brush.

Kinda unfair and way out of proportion doncha think? The fizzlegate saga was a non event. The worlds moved on - get over it.

*Yawn* A couple of guys behaving badly and you tar the entire global scientific community with the same brush.

Kinda unfair and way out of proportion doncha think? The fizzlegate saga was a non event. The worlds moved on - get over it.

Leading climate scientists in Australia are being subjected to an escalating campaign of death threats and abusive phone calls...

Baldrick May 3, 2012 at 9:31 am

Good one Simon … hand wringing scientists fake death threat emails … ‘Wimpgate’ sounds appropriate.

What does that look like CB!

Looks like a warming tend.
Yup, it's a warming trend alright...

Why the Global Warming Skeptics Are Wrong

In a better world, debates about science — and nearly everything else — would be conducted without resort to demagoguery, sentimentality, cynical manipulation, or hysteria. In the world we inhabit, those tactics are dismayingly routine. Still, the great weakness of overwrought predictions of doom is that they can be checked.

Firt of all, no global temperture series has 0.8C of warming.

Secondly, that chart covers over 130 years.

If we have the same trend for the next 90 years to 2100, we are only at 1.5C of warming.

The IPCC prediction is 3.25C by 2100.

So you see a line going up.

I see a line that will get to something under 1.5C by 2100 when everything possible is taken into account.

Do you see how a "line going up" is not the same thing as global warming theory being accurate because every way we look at it, less than half the warming seems to be show up.

"Line going up less than half as much as it supposed to" is the caption you should put above it.

Cuddly symbols not coooperating in climate panic

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/2012/04/cuddly-symbols-not-coooperating-climate-panic/525971



Exactly the point I and others have been making for years.

CO2 levels will keep on increasing (unless we do something to stop it) therefore the rise in temps will increase over time.

Well Ceebee in the light of your claim as above, I ask once again as you seem incapable of answering this question, I am still waiting for that, to use a favorite word from the warmista lexicon, "unequivocal peer reviewed" and observed empirical confirmation from you that increasing levels of CO2 are alone responsible for the recent [ dangerously ? ] increasing global temperatures and observed empirical observations that those increases in the recent global temperatures cannot be explained solely as due to just the normal, natural forces of Nature that have driven global climate changes for the previous 4.5 billion years of this planet's existence?

The climate of the last 10,000 years has been everything except stable, and global mean temperatures fluctuated by more than 1°C. Today’s “Modern Warm Period” was preceded by the Little Ice Age (LIA), which lasted from 1300 to 1850.

The high point of the Little Ice Age occurred during a period of weak solar activity from 1645-1715, called the Maunder Minimum. During this time, Central Europe turned bitter cold, glaciers grew and the Thames River even froze over in the wintertime. During the cold winter of 1683/1684, the ground froze more than a meter deep in Southern England.

The Little Ice Age is widely known for the North Atlantic region of Northern Europe, and for this reason some scientists falsely assumed that it had been a regional phenomenon and it was balanced out by other areas on the planet being warmer. However, this hypothesis has not been confirmed as a growing body of scientific literature shows that all continents were hit by the LIA.

In the Mediterranean region there have been no reliable temperature reconstructions from during this period. The existing tree-ring temperature reconstructions for the last 500 years have been regarded as riddled with problems as tree rings in some cases in the Alps and upper northern latitudes are turning out to be an unsuitable method for climate reconstructions.
&

Extreme cold with snow occurred in 16 of 25 winters between 1675 and 1700. Especially the years 1665, 1677, 1684, 1687 and 1692 temperatures fell sharply and rivers on the Italian peninsula froze. From 1682 to 1707 a number of flooding catastrophes occurred in Northern Italy. Extremely cold winters struck between 1684 and 1694 and an especially cold winter in 1709. The Venetian Lagoon froze over in 1684 and 1709. The lowest temperature was measured in 1684. In Sicily a series of catastrophic harvests hit in the 1690s. For the cold of the 1683/1684 winter, a statistical period of repetition of 1000 years was calculated.