Global Warming Not As Bad As We Thought

[rahhhh]

The Met office have re-analysed their surface sea temperature data (SST) . This makes up over 70% of the global temperature.

They have found a 31% drop in the 1950-2006 temperature trend (from 0.097 deg C/dec to 0.068 deg C/dec). The graph below shows the change - red vs black line. This coincides with the time when CO2 has been increasing the most

This change is due to a reanalysis of the timings of when ships changed from measuring temperature by dropping a bucket in the ocean to measuring the engine intake temperature. Previously it was assumed that the change happened abruptly in 1940 it is now found that the changeover happened up to the 1970s.

[Executive Sadman]

Yes, there has been much discussion on this by the 'deniers'

All the Pro-AGW occultists focus on the thousands of land based station data, and a comparatively miniscule amount of ocean based measurement, and satellite based temperature measurements are notoriously inaccurate and open to interpretation (read, massive rounding up by AGW occultists).

This despite the fact 70% odd of the world is sea and the oceans act as our radiators doesnt seem to bother them. Instead they rely on land based stations of often extremely dubious standards.

No doubt they'll blame it on sunspots or something else.

[erranta]

Yes, there has been much discussion on this by the 'deniers'

All the Pro-AGW occultists focus on the thousands of land based station data, and a comparatively miniscule amount of ocean based measurement, and satellite based temperature measurements are notoriously inaccurate and open to interpretation (read, massive rounding up by AGW occultists).

This despite the fact 70% odd of the world is sea and the oceans act as our radiators doesnt seem to bother them. Instead they rely on land based stations of often extremely dubious standards.

No doubt they'll blame it on sunspots or something else.

All you need to know

Ant-werp ('Warp' for Trekkies! ) = Diamonds (diabolical etc) = Car-bon

Kill-winning Lodge = AIR (Scotland)

Warp 'FACTOR' 7 Mr Scott (kirk is a scottish-Flanders church)

(A 'factor' is a scottish money/debt collector for the gentry)

If you study the Masonic set square-compass there is a 'diamond' shape behind the 'G'

Robert Edward "Bob" Diamond - one of the Masonic Usury 'Godheads' (Mug-ger)

AGW is a reverse mirror of

W/M for masons

G+A = their Great Architect

'Frosties' (Fraternity Rosicrucians)- theyyyyyyyyre (Abif-'tyre') Great (Architect)

Tony-The-Tiger = TTT triple Tau (Tic-Tac-Toe) = Royal Arch Freemasons

Teflon Tony - he's a Royal Arch 'Yorkie' Bar/rab

TT RACes (Royal Arch Chapter etc)

Tony = Antony > Antient Mason/Masonic Lodge/Temple

Templar knight - Crusade - Jerusalem Premiere CRUsade

Knoblest Knights - "Premiere CRU" - sade(Lacoste)

'CE' mark >>> CrusadE

Crusade

"A Cursed"

"Cad Ruse"

Remember they said Bush Iraq invasion was a modern crusade

anagram = "Scud Era" Top Mason 'SaD-Dam' Missile

Crusader

Card User = (Masons occult) Tarot

"ARD Curse" = (ARDEN) Shakespeare

"Ear Cruds" = Imps 'n Gargoyles 'Eaves'- droppers

Crud Something loathsome, despicable, or worthless. One who is contemptible or disgusting (perfect match description of the 'Imps')

"Carder Us" = 'carding' is a traditional method of preparing fleece and fibers for spinning lofty 'yarns' of varying lengths.

(Masonic Wit, Panto-mime & labyrinthine stories practised on the unknowing "Profane")

"Tarot

Arthur Edward Waite (1857 - 1943)[/url] was a mystic, an occultist, and an enthusiastic Freemason. Bro. Waite was also a prolific author in each of these subject areas, and was the founder of numerous mystic organizations, some for which Masonic Membership was a prerequisite, and others which were loosely based upon the tenets of Freemasonry. Of all of Waite’s lifetime accomplishments, the one for which he is best remembered is his publication (1910) of a unique set of Tarot cards, which came to be known as the Rider-Waite Deck, or the RWD. This deck was unique because it was the first modern deck in which the cards of the Minor Arcana were illustrated and not just those of the Major Arcana (the creator of the Sola Busca Deck did this earlier- i.e. the late 15^th Century).

W.B. Yeats, the famous Irish poet was a member of the Golden Dawn, an organization with which Waite was prominently associated. Waite was also involved with Gérard-Anaclet-Vincent Encausse (aka Papus, 1865-1916) who asserted Egyptian origins for the Tarot. Papus was a key member of the gnostic Martinist Order. Waite incidentally wrote the preface to Papus’ Tarot of the Bohemians"

Deuteronomy 18:10-11 (NIV) Let no one be found among you... who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or cast spells, or who is a medium or spiritist.

Isaiah 2:6 (NIV) You have abandoned your people, the house of Jacob. They are full of superstitions from the East; they practice divination like the Philistines and clasp hands with pagans.

Crusades

"Cad's Ruse"

"Cad Ruses"

"Sad Curse"

"As Cursed"

The Temptation laid on for the Knights 'conquering' was the Pope promising them huge rewards of land and new duk-dom(iciles) and the plunder after slaughtering the Muslims and Jews in Jerusalem City

Injin - you know where you can go - you cereal 'carder'!

[Ruffneck]

The miniscule warming trend has only been apparent since 1985.

Makes sense that , no-one owned cars before 1985....

[Bossybabe]

Yes, there has been much discussion on this by the 'deniers'

All the Pro-AGW occultists focus on the thousands of land based station data, and a comparatively miniscule amount of ocean based measurement, and satellite based temperature measurements are notoriously inaccurate and open to interpretation (read, massive rounding up by AGW occultists).

This despite the fact 70% odd of the world is sea and the oceans act as our radiators doesnt seem to bother them. Instead they rely on land based stations of often extremely dubious standards.

No doubt they'll blame it on sunspots or something else.

But isn't the ocean bigger than the land? Duh!

[newbonic]

For anyone who wants to check the met Office Hadley Centre site itself, their discusion of HadSST3 is HERE.

The Hadley graph is this:

The Hadley discussion of corrections is HERE.

And it's discussed in detail at RealClimate HERE.

[fluffy666]

The Met office have re-analysed their surface sea temperature data (SST) . This makes up over 70% of the global temperature.

They have found a 31% drop in the 1950-2006 temperature trend (from 0.097 deg C/dec to 0.068 deg C/dec). The graph below shows the change - red vs black line. This coincides with the time when CO2 has been increasing the most

This change is due to a reanalysis of the timings of when ships changed from measuring temperature by dropping a bucket in the ocean to measuring the engine intake temperature. Previously it was assumed that the change happened abruptly in 1940 it is now found that the changeover happened up to the 1970s.

I'm sure you'll be overwhelmed by 'Auditors' asking why you choose the year with the biggest difference to start your calculation (1950), as opposed to 1940 or 1960. Indeed, I'm surprised that none of our native global warming 'skeptic' expert scientists haven't pulled you up on it already. Perhaps they missed the thread.

[rahhhh]

While the hadley graph is pretty it doesn't show the change that the new SST3 makes over the old SST2.

The reason for using the period from 1950 is because this is the period that corresponds to the majority of the increase in CO2. In 1958 co2 was approximately 315ppm or 35ppm above "pre-industrial" levels. Nowadays CO2 is 390ppm or 110ppm above "pre-industrial" levels.

The use of this period also highlights the changes between SST2 and 3. The changes over the full period can be seen from the graph below from realclimate

[inflating]

All you need to know

Ant-werp ('Warp' for Trekkies! ) = Diamonds (diabolical etc) = Car-bon

Kill-winning Lodge = AIR (Scotland)

Warp 'FACTOR' 7 Mr Scott (kirk is a scottish-Flanders church)

(A 'factor' is a scottish money/debt collector for the gentry)

If you study the Masonic set square-compass there is a 'diamond' shape behind the 'G'

Robert Edward "Bob" Diamond - one of the Masonic Usury 'Godheads' (Mug-ger)

AGW is a reverse mirror of

W/M for masons

G+A = their Great Architect

'Frosties' (Fraternity Rosicrucians)- theyyyyyyyyre (Abif-'tyre') Great (Architect)

Tony-The-Tiger = TTT triple Tau (Tic-Tac-Toe) = Royal Arch Freemasons

Teflon Tony - he's a Royal Arch 'Yorkie' Bar/rab

TT RACes (Royal Arch Chapter etc)

Tony = Antony > Antient Mason/Masonic Lodge/Temple

Templar knight - Crusade - Jerusalem Premiere CRUsade

Knoblest Knights - "Premiere CRU" - sade(Lacoste)

'CE' mark >>> CrusadE

Crusade

"A Cursed"

"Cad Ruse"

Remember they said Bush Iraq invasion was a modern crusade

anagram = "Scud Era" Top Mason 'SaD-Dam' Missile

Crusader

Card User = (Masons occult) Tarot

"ARD Curse" = (ARDEN) Shakespeare

"Ear Cruds" = Imps 'n Gargoyles 'Eaves'- droppers

Crud Something loathsome, despicable, or worthless. One who is contemptible or disgusting (perfect match description of the 'Imps')

"Carder Us" = 'carding' is a traditional method of preparing fleece and fibers for spinning lofty 'yarns' of varying lengths.

(Masonic Wit, Panto-mime & labyrinthine stories practised on the unknowing "Profane")

"Tarot

Arthur Edward Waite (1857 - 1943)[/url] was a mystic, an occultist, and an enthusiastic Freemason. Bro. Waite was also a prolific author in each of these subject areas, and was the founder of numerous mystic organizations, some for which Masonic Membership was a prerequisite, and others which were loosely based upon the tenets of Freemasonry. Of all of Waite’s lifetime accomplishments, the one for which he is best remembered is his publication (1910) of a unique set of Tarot cards, which came to be known as the Rider-Waite Deck, or the RWD. This deck was unique because it was the first modern deck in which the cards of the Minor Arcana were illustrated and not just those of the Major Arcana (the creator of the Sola Busca Deck did this earlier- i.e. the late 15^th Century).

W.B. Yeats, the famous Irish poet was a member of the Golden Dawn, an organization with which Waite was prominently associated. Waite was also involved with Gérard-Anaclet-Vincent Encausse (aka Papus, 1865-1916) who asserted Egyptian origins for the Tarot. Papus was a key member of the gnostic Martinist Order. Waite incidentally wrote the preface to Papus’ Tarot of the Bohemians"

Deuteronomy 18:10-11 (NIV) Let no one be found among you... who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or cast spells, or who is a medium or spiritist.

Isaiah 2:6 (NIV) You have abandoned your people, the house of Jacob. They are full of superstitions from the East; they practice divination like the Philistines and clasp hands with pagans.

Crusades

"Cad's Ruse"

"Cad Ruses"

"Sad Curse"

"As Cursed"

The Temptation laid on for the Knights 'conquering' was the Pope promising them huge rewards of land and new duk-dom(iciles) and the plunder after slaughtering the Muslims and Jews in Jerusalem City

Injin - you know where you can go - you cereal 'carder'!

This reminds me of deciphering the clues on 80s quiz show 321 with Ted Rogers.

Speaking of which, saw a couple of the little Dusty Bins at fairs last year.

[Number79]

I didnt think that it was a secret that the seas temp was the controlling factor of land temps.

There is something like, from memory, a 200 year lag.

Cant remember the detail and not looking now but the sea temp causes rising temps, 200 ish years in lag, and then the results eventually cause a cooling.

I cant be arsed finding details tbh.

Our wet summers say a lot about what is coming in terms of winters.

The climate is changing but it is not warming right now and people will soon realise that.

[snowflux]

The sun controlled the lot.

Given that there has been no correlation whatsoever between the changes in the sun's output and the changes in the global temperature over the past few decades, that's pretty unlikely.

The sun's output has, if anything, fallen slightly since about 1960, whereas the global temperature has climbed significantly since then.

[Tiger Woods?]

Given that there has been no correlation whatsoever between the changes in the sun's output and the changes in the global temperature over the past few decades, that's pretty unlikely.

Sort of like CO2 over the past two decades...

[fluffy666]

The reason for using the period from 1950 is because this is the period that corresponds to the majority of the increase in CO2. In 1958 co2 was approximately 315ppm or 35ppm above "pre-industrial" levels. Nowadays CO2 is 390ppm or 110ppm above "pre-industrial" levels.

Still not answering the question 'Why not 1940 or 1960'?

(Yes, I know the answer, the only way that this change can be construed to make any difference is to cherry pick your start date as 1950, I just like to see the desperate justifications given)

[rahhhh]

Still not answering the question 'Why not 1940 or 1960'?

(Yes, I know the answer, the only way that this change can be construed to make any difference is to cherry pick your start date as 1950, I just like to see the desperate justifications given)

Over the 1940-2006 period the HadSST trend is reduced by 35% from 0.074 deg/decade (HadSST2) to 0.048 deg/decade (HadSST3). Don't know the numbers for 1960-2006

[fluffy666]

Over the 1940-2006 period the HadSST trend is reduced by 35% from 0.074 deg/decade (HadSST2) to 0.048 deg/decade (HadSST3). Don't know the numbers for 1960-2006

Given that, for 1940, the values for both series appear virtually identical, I'd like to see the working here.

[fluffy666]

Sort of like CO2 over the past two decades...

The joy of pseudoscience is never having to give references or working, ever.

[snowflux]

Unlikely but not unproven?

Nothing in science is proven. It is not impossible that changes in the sun's output are, in some convoluted fashion, the main factor driving recent changes in the Earth's temperature; it's just extremely unlikely given the obvious lack of correlation.

The must closer correlation between greenhouse gas concentrations and temperature over the past few decades, together with a known mechanism linking the two parameters, makes that a far more likely suspect (though, of course, not proven).

[Tiger Woods?]

The joy of pseudoscience is never having to give references or working, ever.

Well, that's me smacked down and put in my place then.

It is a very simple point, but I know you have difficulty with them, so let me spell it out for you. Phil Jones admitted in an online interview with the BBC that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995, i.e. the regression line is more or less flat. Annual CO2 has been increasing more or less linearly (as measuread at Mauna Loa). Regressing these two variables will show non-significant correlation. Damn.

You cannot attack the solar theory using a few decades of data and not apply the same standards to CO2. Any fudge factor you want to apply to explain away the last couple of decades for CO2 is unlikely to be any better or worse than a fudge factor that can be applied to the solar theory. The special pleading is pathetic.

[snowflux]

Christ!

You need to get yourself over the the religious thread with that statement.

Why? Any scientist would agree with me. Scientific theories are never 100% "proven" (though they can be disproven). Many non-scientists (especially tabloid journalists) seem to have have problems getting their heads round this.

[snowflux]

OK, I think I see what you are saying, but perhaps I should have said on the balance of probabilities...

Exactly. Science is always a balance of probabilities. Which is why I won't be blowing my life's savings on coke and hookers tonight on the basis that the sun might stop shining tomorrow.

[fluffy666]

Well, that's me smacked down and put in my place then.

It is a very simple point, but I know you have difficulty with them, so let me spell it out for you. Phil Jones admitted in an online interview with the BBC that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995, i.e. the regression line is more or less flat.

Yes, the notion that you might have to look at the data is a hard one, although you do see many top papers using BBC interviews as primary sources.

However, Phil Jones was wrong in this case:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/01/21/phil-jones-was-wrong/

Feel free to argue the case there. As I'm sure you are aware, however, 1995 was chosen deliberately as the longest ago you could get with a probability of warming not being due to chance <95% (i.e it was something like a 94% chance of not being flat).

Annual CO2 has been increasing more or less linearly (as measuread at Mauna Loa). Regressing these two variables will show non-significant correlation. Damn..

First, climatology generally looks at total radiative forcing relating to temperature, not a simple correlation between two parameters, for reasons that should be obvious, and second, most such models have at least one lag between forcing and response. Second, you are indeed correlating two rising series (although what you would get from that is of dubious value).

You cannot attack the solar theory using a few decades of data and not apply the same standards to CO2. Any fudge factor you want to apply to explain away the last couple of decades for CO2 is unlikely to be any better or worse than a fudge factor that can be applied to the solar theory. The special pleading is pathetic.

The solar constant has been flatlining or even slightly decreasing since 1950, ref:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

You don't need any fudge factors to get a very strong correlation between temperature and simple physical models of climate based on radiative forcing (which includes but is not limited to the CO2-greenhouse effect).

Oh, and conflating 6 decades of no solar-climate connection with an incorrect assertion of no statistically significant warming in 16 years looks a lot more like special pleading to me. As well as the implied assumption that only one factor can affect climate..

[rahhhh]

Given that, for 1940, the values for both series appear virtually identical, I'd like to see the working here.

The trend is based on fitting a linear trendline to the curve, not on subtracting the start from the endpoint and dividing by the number of years. I have put a graph below that shows two different series with their linear trendlines on (just done in excel). The numbers in both curves are the same (apart from the values for 5,6,7 and 8). It can be seen that the trendlines are very different

[rahhhh]

What we are witnessing is the same statisticians tricks used to get medicine passed Govt requirements, being used by the climate change industry.

?????

[fluffy666]

The trend is based on fitting a linear trendline to the curve, not on subtracting the start from the endpoint and dividing by the number of years. I have put a graph below that shows two different series with their linear trendlines on (just done in excel). The numbers in both curves are the same (apart from the values for 5,6,7 and 8). It can be seen that the trendlines are very different

Fair enough. So that would mean essentially no change if you started from 1960. One robustness test for a model of a data set such as this is that the result is independent of the start and end points. Given this, do you think modelling the last 60 years of global temperature data as a linear trend is a valid approach?