Our cooling world

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
52
Oshawa

More weather reports from Walt.

Shall I post some heat waves for you to absorb Walt or would you even stick around to respond?






From this....

March 24, 2010

The paper (page 15) also says that 2010 will likely set a new record high global surface temperature, unless El Nino rapidly weakens by mid-2010 and gets replaced by La Nina conditions. Some models do continue to show a steady weakening of El Nino by the summer, so it will be interesting to see what happens

to this.

July 16, 2010

The trend to a warmer world is now incontrovertible … 2010 is on course to be the warmest year since records began in 1880

Last month was the hottest June ever recorded worldwide and the fourth consecutive month that the combined global land and sea temperature records have been broken, according to the US government’s climate data centre.
The figures released last night by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) suggest that 2010 is now on course to be the warmest year since records began in 1880.

Yep....we're cooling down alright.:lol:
 

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
52
Oshawa
Marmots predict ENSO & Global Cooling since 1998

We recently reported on a study in Nature showing that marmots respond favourably to increased atmospheric CO2 (or maybe biscuits). In the wake of the release of NOAA’s 2009 State of the Climate report, in which it is concluded that “global warming is undeniable”, we thought the marmots worth revisiting to see how they compared with the report’s Key Climate Indicators. After all, their cousins the groundhogs have been used in climate prediction for centuries, as have similar animals, and the University of Chicago apparently employs a yeti for the same purpose. We were therefore surprised that NOAA didn’t at least rate the marmots a mention. To rectify this, we here subject the Nature population to a rigorous statistical analysis in the style pioneered by our Friend Steven Goddard, graphic analyst (or is it anal graphicist?) extraordinaire and regular poster at the world’s most popular science website, Watts Up With That.

We begin with the orthodox
denialist scientific practice of carefully selecting the datasets we wish to compare. From the marmot record, the obvious data to use are those on adult mean mass (solid curve in Figure 1b); readers will agree that the familiar shape of that curve, particularly after 1998, shows that only mature marmots have the experience necessary to map climatic changes correctly. Of course, we need to verify this against other climate records, so we use the ones that have always demonstrated that global warming has stopped: the HadCRUT3 surface temperature record and various of the UAH satellite records. Next, we perform what Steven would modestly describe as an ‘innovation’ but which might in some circles be uncharitably referred to as a ‘trick’: plot them on the same graph, with suitably scaled axes, and stare at them for a while until a (non energy-efficient) lightbulb comes on.

First, we plot the marmot weights against the HadCRUT3 record:




It’s evident (under bad light and after some
inspiration) that with only a couple of exceptions and allowing, particularly in the marmot dataset, for noise, the agreement is rather good. What does this agreement tell us? It tells us that contrary to the findings of supposed ‘experts’, marmots can indeed predict climate: the criticisms of the Nature study in certain learned journals are proven ground(hog)less and the method of thoughtful interpretation of a nice graph once again shows its value.

What do the exceptions tell us? 1990 might suggest that marmots are not good at predicting El Nino events (see also 1983), but evidently they’re improving with experience: 1998 was spot on. 1992-1993 indicates they can’t predict volcanic eruptions: Pinatubo clearly caught them by surprise. From 2002-2006 they follow the downward trend in the HadCRUT3 record (which of course began in 1998), but they’re quite separated from it. Perhaps, being restricted in their range and altitude, this particular population of marmots might be unduly susceptible to the influence of local factors.

Let’s compare the marmot data, then, with another temperature record, the UAH lower troposphere over the 48 States. This record is likely to be a more appropriate comparison than the global surface one, because the marmots live in a State and being alpine are closer to Roy Spencer’s satellites (and to
Heaven):



While the early 90s discrepancy remains, agreement in the early 80s and in the 2000s is vastly improved. Furthermore, it is evident that the marmots anticipated the effects of the 1998 El Nino on their local troposphere ahead of time, suggesting they’re improving with experience and confirming beyond doubt our interpretation that they predict climate change rather than respond to it. Their slight delay in 2007 needn’t be seen as negating this, as being in an overall cooling period they obviously needed to assimilate more data before a (short) reversal of trend could be justified. And anyway, if CO2 lags the onset of deglaciation, why shouldn’t marmots lag the onset of El Nino occasionally? As predictors, they appear to be more skillful than NASA’s James Hansen but less skillful than atmospheric water molecules. This might be because the water molecules are globally distributed while Hansen is mostly confined to New York.

So, where does all this leave us and what sort of
erudite conclusions would Steven Goddard draw from such rigorous graphical analysis? Here are a few we can think of:


We’re sure our intelligent readers can think of some more. Please comment!

FOGT
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
149
63
Friends of Gin and Tonic, a parody of the sort of junk that comes from Friends of Science, is not the only parody blog. Denial Depot is another hilarious parody of the sort of junk one might come across at Watts Up With That, a favourite of Walter's.
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,847
188
63
Nakusp, BC
It's just getting more difficult to tell with every passing case of fraud.
Fraud would be the oil industry obfuscating the facts to justify their continued rape of the planet, obscene profits and to divert moneys to antiquated technology away from the development of alternatives to unnecessary pollution by the oil guzzling automotive industry. Everybody seems to be aware of your motivation for calling fraud because of your own invested interests (except for Walter, of course - nobody can figure out his motivation).
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
145
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
It's really tough to take your comments seriously Cliffy. Over the years, I've hard just about every conspiracy theory involving the oil companies, but what I find really interesting is that while the motivation of these companies is for profit (obscene profits), a handful of these companies are sitting on earth-shattering technology that would make dwarf their meager (existing) profits and make them pale in comparison to what they have today.

But somehow, they aren't interested, right?

Doesn't make much sense, does it?
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,847
188
63
Nakusp, BC
It's really tough to take your comments seriously Cliffy. Over the years, I've hard just about every conspiracy theory involving the oil companies, but what I find really interesting is that while the motivation of these companies is for profit (obscene profits), a handful of these companies are sitting on earth-shattering technology that would make dwarf their meager (existing) profits and make them pale in comparison to what they have today.

But somehow, they aren't interested, right?

Doesn't make much sense, does it?
It wouldn't if it were true, but no, they are sitting on technology that would cut into their profits. That is not a conspiracy theory. It is the capitalist way.
 

MapleOne

Worlds greatest Dad'n
Jul 19, 2010
145
0
16
Kitchener, Ontario
www.MapleOne.com
And there are no plastics in the ocean either! Right? Let me just bury my head in the sand and pretend that serieous issues don't exist.

I just have to look at the past couple of winters in my neighbourhood, it was almost balmy.

You cannot argue with the fact that greenhouse gases cause a greenhouse effect, hence the name. The globe is going to turn into a big greenhouse surrounded by our pollution.

I guess you could argue that the suns rays wont penetrate the smog but that would contradict scientific evidence.
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
145
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
It wouldn't if it were true, but no, they are sitting on technology that would cut into their profits. That is not a conspiracy theory. It is the capitalist way.


Still doesn't make sense Cliffy. In the oil/gas game, if you aren't perpetually expanding production, you're dead; that's just the way it is. It is remarkable to believe that these groups would continually keep expanding when they could just stop expanding and then bring the tech into the mix... That said, this wonder-tech that's been under wraps for decades would have made the "owner" of the tech massively wealthy, especially if they could have cornered the market.

Sorry Cliffy, what you say is but a fantasy or rhetoric from a competing interest group/sector.
 

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
52
Oshawa
It's just getting more difficult to tell with every passing case of fraud.

Nope, not buying that tired line Captain.

You didn't read it, you don't read anything.

This after you accuse me of lacking in objectivity.:lol:

You're funny.

Anyways, I"ve asked this before, could you provide the countless reems of fraud that have discredited 97% of scientists who say AGW is real.

Thanks.
 
Last edited: