2011: 13 Years of NO Global Warming!
Posted on 11. Jan, 2012 by admin in Global Warming
IPCC doomcasts revealed as scandalous frauds. Catastrophic collapse of public willingness to be put on an energy diet. Collapse of Chicago Carbon exchange. Cap and Trade dead in the US. Cancun Climate summit achieves nothing. Another bad year for Global Warming catastrophists
Related posts:
- Climate Change and Global Warming vs Global Cooling
- Global Warming: A Scientific and Biblical Expose’ of Climate Change
- Global Warming False Alarm: The Bad Science Behind the United Nations’ Assertion that Man-made CO2 Causes Global Warming
- Funny Politics – Global Disastrification (Global Warming Spoof)
- Is Global Warming A Hoax?
2012 now, with claims of a “sizzling rise of 3? Degrees (celsius)” that continue to melt the permafrost. One claim after another.
@ Drkstrong Cool story, bro.?
No warming since 1998? WRONG. See:? Watch? V = Ai6ju28nAyk
@ ValarMorgothI have forgoten, his name is Keith Strong. Religion:? Jewish
@ Drkstrong Since this scum kept telling me to get my facts straight, I have done? A bit of a research and got more data on this lying scum. He worked for Lockheed Martin until recently (around 2006) when he had transferred to NASA Goddard Center. There he works in climate manipulation and population sustainability department. Funny, how nasa works on population issues. The goal is DEPOPULATION. If anyone wants, I will give you the home phone number of this scum and? other data.
It really does not matter whether the globe is warming or cooling. Very few can verify the truth and the weather can easily be manipulated. What is important is to ensure that while people are caught in the debate, those in power are not left unchecked with their grand theft.? A theft which only requires a convincing story so people will agree to give up more of their freedom and accept a steep rise in cost of living.
@ Drkstrong maybe some things are but those things aren’t climate science where you will be hard pressed finding things above the 95th%… At? Least I haven’t noticed any.. But hey…. You know more then the NOAA according to you so write them and tell them they are putting out meaningless statistics
@ Capemall Actually not. Most things? In astrophysics are done to 3 sigma (soemtimes 5 sigma – 99. 9999%)
@ Drkstrong ah ok… Well statistics isn’t? My forte ‘and apparently it isn’t your’s either since everything is done to the 95th%
@ Capemall No that’s 2 sigma. 3 sigma is 99. 7%?
@ Drkstrong Typically NOAA works at the 95%. Since their comment about 15 years of no warming would invalidate the models at the 95% I assume they are staying consistant. If? I’m not mistaken that is 3 sigma.
@ Capemall Because It means that you have no? Basis for stating whether there is a positive or negative trend the paper says that. Also the uncertainty quoted is not stated how many sigma if it is 3 sigma then it is significant. I suspect it is 2 sigma which means it is barely significant. However if you include 2009 and 2010 the significance goes way up.
@ Drkstrong You never even found the paper did you? Paste what it says that contradicts anything? I have posted.
@ Drkstrong Bottom line is you were wrong, again, and? You just don’t like it do you? Get over it.
@ Drkstrong? Explain how this comment applies to anything I have posted or be a gentleman and make your apology.
@ Capemall Did you bother to read the paper? Apparently not. They say that trends of 10 years or less are? Unreliable and can give sharp increasing or decreasing trends (precisely what I said in my video). I calculate that you need at leats 15 years to estatblish a trend of about 0. 2C/decade with randon fluctuations similar to the month to month changes in global temperatures. You also need to start & end at the same time of year and avoid strong El Nino or La nina years as a start-end point
@ Capemall Did you bother to read the paper? Apparently not. They say that trends of 10? Years or less are unreliable and can give sharp increasing or decreasing trends (precisely what I said in my video). I calculate that you need at leats 15 years to estatblish a trend of about 0. 2C/decade with randon fluctuations similar to the month to month changes in global temperatures. You also need to start & end at the same time of year and avoid strong El Nino or La nina years as a start / end point
@ Drkstrong? Page 23
@ Capemall I just looked back at the NOAA BAMS report and could not find where it talked about a trend in global temperatures from 1999 to? 2008 – any clue where it said that.
@ Drkstrong I used 2008 because 2009 didn’t have the enso adjusted trend in it thus why you didn’t remember seeing it… I didn’t start in 1998… In fact I didn’t start at all.. . I am regurgitating what the NOAA did and? they started in 1999…. I’m sure your method is superior to those used by the NOAA but just to amuse me and yourself why don’t you see what results you get
@ Capemall The method? I use is a standard statistical analysis package (IDL LINFIT) – I dont know what NOAA uses but I know that LINFIT is a tested and reliable routine. I’ll give it a try when I have some time to kill and see what I get. I’ll let you know.
@ Capemall I misread 2008 as 2009 (misplaced my reading glasses!)? But why would you not be using the most recent (albeit already out of date) data?. 2008 is a low year so you start on a high year (98) and end on a low (08). Again in my analysis I state that I use only data when the SOI is considered neutral (
@ Drkstrong I went? And looked at your video. Now use your method from 1999 to 2008 and see if you get the same result as NOAA… If you do then extend it to 2010 and see what you get… If you don’t then find a new method
@ Drkstrong if you didn’t see it in the 2009 report why would you think I meant the 2009 report when I said the 2008 report? Now you really have me confused, on one hand you say you don’t include the months with la ninas and el ninos and then you state you include most of 2010 which was? dominated by an el nino.
@ Drkstrong More BS no answers, as usual. Now you invented how you? Are not US citizen. Muahahahaha… Good one. I guess you will be using that one from now on. For someone who insists on facts you fail a lot on giving rational answers. I guess that, by submitting BS while failing to answer, you have admitted defeat. DID USA TEST A BOMBS SHITHEAD? WHAT ABOUT ROCKETS SHITHEAD? illuminati scum….