Getting Rid of the 30s and 40s Warm Blips

Heated discussions on a hot topic.
User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 33816
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Getting Rid of the 30s and 40s Warm Blips

Post by Gord » Wed Mar 28, 2018 1:16 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:How can I get you together with Xouper?
Strangely, It appears Xouper stopped posting just like Sweetpea stopped posting. I don't know why.
I'm pretty sure Xouper got tired of what he perceived to be an unending conflict with other people. The gun thread certainly spilled over into other discussions. Eventually he seemed to be really pissed at other posters, no matter what they were posting.

I don't know nuthin' 'bout S.P. (I still can't spell his name correctly!). I put him on ignore a long time ago because others complained about my responses to him, so I don't know what he was posting about towards the end. Maybe he finally figured out the error of his denying ways and reformed? That's the story I'm going with, since his version of reality doesn't really affect me either way and I like happy endings.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: Getting Rid of the 30s and 40s Warm Blips

Post by Jim Steele » Wed Mar 28, 2018 7:37 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Jim, quoting from crackpot sources simply makes you appear to be dishonest.
ROTFLMAO You are truly a robot from the alarmist troll factory. All you can ever say is denier.. crackpot...conspiracy..denier...crackpot.. The more insults you spew makes you appear to be nothing more than a conspiracy theorist troll
Lance Kennedy wrote:The way they did that, Jim, is to begin with 1998 and ignore everything that came before. 1998 was a strong El Nino year, and thus much warmer than normal. This makes the recovery years that follow look like a cooling, whereas they simply represent years that are back onto the long term trend. You will see that warming then continues.
This getting rid of the 30s and 40s warm blips is about comparing temperatures from the 30s to now. Undoubtedly it warmed from the 1850s to the 1930s. That would be all natural. But all over the world the 30s and 40s were the warmest times but all you can do spew standard troll memes "conspiracy..denier...crackpot.."

We can look further back at Australia's temps over the past 3000 years to see how ocean heat transport drives temperatures. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 9117305930

Image
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11881
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Getting Rid of the 30s and 40s Warm Blips

Post by Lance Kennedy » Thu Mar 29, 2018 4:17 am

Well, at least that reference is a reputable one. Congratulations, Jim, keep it up.

The problem is that it does not relate to modern global warming. The graph posted does not clearly indicate where the warming is at the present day compared to the rest, since the paper is actually about the more distant past. So even if the reference is reputable, it is not relevant.

On the rest of your message, Jim. The blips you refer to are still there in the 100 year graphs I referred to, except that they become minor compared to the long term trends.

On dishonesty. I did not call you dishonest, Jim. But the graph you posted certainly was. When you use such dishonest references, it gives the impression, rightly or wrongly, that you might also be dishonest. Not a good look.

Please do not use ultra short term graphs, like the 18 years in NZ, or ultra long term graphs like the South Australia one you just posted. Both can be used to mislead. The key period is the time from the industrial revolution to the present. To avoid cherry picking data, any graph should be sufficiently long (say 50 years plus) to avoid short term cherry picking, and sufficiently short (say 300 years or less) to avoid swamping the global warming data, by making modern warming look unimportant on the time scale used. It is not unimportant, and such games are a bit disgusting.

As I have pointed out before, there is a well financed global warming denier movement, funded by the coal and oil industries, with people paid to publish stuff that misleads by seeking to minimise global warming trends. For example, Koch Industries, a big American oil corporate, founded the Cato Institute, and funds it to the tune of $30 million per year, and part of the purpose of this think tank is to publish material minimising the impact of global warming. Fortunately, even Big Oil now no longer tries to totally deny global warming. But their new strategy is to suggest it will not be a problem, or might even be an asset.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 33816
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Getting Rid of the 30s and 40s Warm Blips

Post by Gord » Thu Mar 29, 2018 10:31 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:On dishonesty. I did not call you dishonest, Jim.
You didn't??? Then I will.

JIm is dishonest.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: Getting Rid of the 30s and 40s Warm Blips

Post by Jim Steele » Thu Mar 29, 2018 7:35 pm

Gord wrote:
Lance Kennedy wrote:On dishonesty. I did not call you dishonest, Jim.
You didn't??? Then I will.

JIm is dishonest.
Gord, all you ever do is engage in hit and run slander. Never a scientific argument. So pitiful.

If you think I am dishonest, then quote me specifically, and then show why I was "dishonest". But all the evidence I provide is from published peer-reviewed evidence
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: Getting Rid of the 30s and 40s Warm Blips

Post by Jim Steele » Thu Mar 29, 2018 7:38 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Well, at least that reference is a reputable one. Congratulations, Jim, keep it up.
ROTFLMAO Clearly that is the first time you have actually read my posts and checked on the references.

The more you do that the more you will realize the abundance of facts and truth I provide
Lance Kennedy wrote:As I have pointed out before, there is a well financed global warming denier movement
You are such a silly conspiracy theorist. Its your shield that prevents you from seeing the contradictory evidence that disrupts your blind beliefs
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11881
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Getting Rid of the 30s and 40s Warm Blips

Post by Lance Kennedy » Thu Mar 29, 2018 7:50 pm

Let me repeat, Jim, since you appear slow of understanding.

If something is in the public domain, and well understood to be true, it is not a conspiracy theory. It is simply another fact. Big Coal and Big Oil even claim their donations to the global warming denier people against tax. It is no secret.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 33816
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Getting Rid of the 30s and 40s Warm Blips

Post by Gord » Thu Mar 29, 2018 9:10 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Let me repeat, Jim, since you appear slow of understanding.
Don't forget dishonest. :heh:
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: Getting Rid of the 30s and 40s Warm Blips

Post by Jim Steele » Thu Mar 29, 2018 9:44 pm

ROTFLMAO. Seems like Lance and Good feel a need to replace the ugly slander of Bobbo!

More hateful silliness and absolutely NO science. Just more ad hominem attacks against real skeptics and real scientists such as myself by the anti-science, conspiracy theorist crowd.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: Getting Rid of the 30s and 40s Warm Blips

Post by Jim Steele » Thu Mar 29, 2018 9:53 pm

The oceans hold more heat in their upper 10 feet than the entire atmosphere. Any ventilation of heat stored in the past creates dramatic changes in global temperatures.

One way to separate the greenhouse effect from ocean ventilation effects is to examine instrumental temperatures that are not affected by ocean ventilation. This is exactly what Lasner et al 2018 did. And it shows greenhouse gases have had little effect globally as the warmest global temperatures were in the 30s and 40s!!!

Image
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11881
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Getting Rid of the 30s and 40s Warm Blips

Post by Lance Kennedy » Thu Mar 29, 2018 10:01 pm

Yet the world's atmosphere keeps getting warmer and warmer. It is also interesting to note that this trend is confined to the lower atmosphere. Higher up, things are cooling. This is consistent with a greenhouse effect, keeping heat lower down. Satellites continue to show that infra red radiation from the Earth is falling, meaning the greenhouse effect is increasing, by reducing the radiation heat loss.

The global warming deniers, Jim, who are fighting a losing battle against the truth, continue to look for any anomaly they can argue demonstrates their false ideas. But the fact is that 97% of climate scientists oppose that view. You, Jim, are in a minority of people, who can rightly be called crackpots. Science deniers.

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: Getting Rid of the 30s and 40s Warm Blips

Post by Jim Steele » Thu Mar 29, 2018 11:33 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Yet the world's atmosphere keeps getting warmer and warmer.
ROTFLMAO

Lance you are indeed slow on the uptake. I provided the graph showing that since the 30s, ALL the temperatures that are not affected by ventilation of past ocean heat, do not report temperatures warmer than the 30s. Yet Lance denies the data to rant the world is getting warmer and warmer. ROTFLMAO. Alarmists only see what they want to see!So lets look at the graph again.

Image
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11881
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Getting Rid of the 30s and 40s Warm Blips

Post by Lance Kennedy » Thu Mar 29, 2018 11:40 pm

Give us the reference from which you obtained the graph, so we can check its reliability. It is seriously different to the NASA and IPCC graphs. Most probably from a bull-{!#%@} source.

A recent report in Geophysical Research Letters (I got this from today's ScienceDaily), shows that the West Greenland ice shelf is melting at its most rapid pace for 450 years.

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: Getting Rid of the 30s and 40s Warm Blips

Post by Jim Steele » Fri Mar 30, 2018 12:24 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Give us the reference from which you obtained the graph, so we can check its reliability. It is seriously different to the NASA and IPCC graphs. Most probably from a bull-{!#%@} source.

A recent report in Geophysical Research Letters (I got this from today's ScienceDaily), shows that the West Greenland ice shelf is melting at its most rapid pace for 450 years.
More denial by Lance. You need to give me the link to the paper refuting Greenland gained ice in 2017!
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: Getting Rid of the 30s and 40s Warm Blips

Post by Jim Steele » Fri Mar 30, 2018 12:29 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Give us the reference from which you obtained the graph,
You were given the Lasner reference above to the paper reporting this graph. Why do you keep trying to dodge and deny the real evidence!

Image
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11881
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Getting Rid of the 30s and 40s Warm Blips

Post by Lance Kennedy » Fri Mar 30, 2018 12:58 am

Lasner is just one of the authors. I do not know him from Beelzebub. He might well be just another crackpot. Give us a proper journal reference. Frankly, Jim, I have developed a serious distrust of your sources. As far as I can make out, they are all rubbish crackpot idiot sources.

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: Getting Rid of the 30s and 40s Warm Blips

Post by Jim Steele » Fri Mar 30, 2018 1:22 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Lasner is just one of the authors. I do not know him from Beelzebub. He might well be just another crackpot. Give us a proper journal reference. Frankly, Jim, I have developed a serious distrust of your sources. As far as I can make out, they are all rubbish crackpot idiot sources.
ROTFLMAO Lance you clearly "have developed a serious distrust" for anything that contradicts your blind beliefs about CO2 caused doomsday. You doomsayers just neglect the science and hype the "catastrophe de jour"

:lol: :lol:

Image
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11881
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Getting Rid of the 30s and 40s Warm Blips

Post by Lance Kennedy » Fri Mar 30, 2018 3:37 am

Straw man alert.
I have never suggested that global warming = doomsday.

As I have said many times, if you want to make claims, Jim, and you want me and others to take them seriously, you should supply back up reputable references.

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: Getting Rid of the 30s and 40s Warm Blips

Post by Jim Steele » Fri Mar 30, 2018 4:01 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Straw man alert.
I have never suggested that global warming = doomsday.

As I have said many times, if you want to make claims, Jim, and you want me and others to take them seriously, you should supply back up reputable references.
All my evidence is backed by published peer-reviewed evidence. You are just trolling Lance!
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11881
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Getting Rid of the 30s and 40s Warm Blips

Post by Lance Kennedy » Fri Mar 30, 2018 4:11 am

You have to prove that, and you do not. Post those references !

Jim's writings have been referred to as Jim Steeles climate science horror series.

http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.co ... ts-in.html

Jim is trained in biology and has been a high school biology teacher. In that sense, he is like me. My degree is also in biology. However, I have never claimed to be an expert in climate science. Jim makes such claims in spite of having no formal climate science training. He uses his spurious "expertise " to carry out an unscientific process of "logic and reasoning " to derive the conclusions he has already decided must be true. In this, he ignores as inconvenient, the solid empirical data that true climate scientists have obtained.

On this forum, Jim has posted graphs and data that turned out to deliver a false conclusion . Like a graph of NZ warming from 1998 to 2016, when extending the graph a year or two in either direction would reverse his conclusion. That is just plain dishonest.
Last edited by Lance Kennedy on Fri Mar 30, 2018 4:23 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: Getting Rid of the 30s and 40s Warm Blips

Post by Jim Steele » Fri Mar 30, 2018 4:23 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:You have to prove that, and you do not. Post those references !
Lance you are just a dishonest troll

Image
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 33816
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Getting Rid of the 30s and 40s Warm Blips

Post by Gord » Fri Mar 30, 2018 4:10 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Give us the reference from which you obtained the graph, so we can check its reliability. It is seriously different to the NASA and IPCC graphs. Most probably from a bull-{!#%@} source.
It's from the notrickzone website.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: Getting Rid of the 30s and 40s Warm Blips

Post by Jim Steele » Fri Mar 30, 2018 4:36 pm

Indeed the graphs' url are from the no trick zone, but they are just the messengers. The peer-reviewed paper from which the graphs are taken is from Lansner and Pederson 2010. The citation is at the bottom of each graph that was posted. I don't understand why you cast aspersions and demand references when the citations are there for everyone to see. Your hate is blinding you to the obvious. Again I plead that you try to overcome your hate so we can have a meaningful debate based on the science. Have a good day Lance and Gord, and come back to the discussion with an open heart.

Image
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11881
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Getting Rid of the 30s and 40s Warm Blips

Post by Lance Kennedy » Fri Mar 30, 2018 7:06 pm

I need to be able to see the reference, and subject it to the Ulrichweb.com test. I cannot do that from the less than sufficient detail given.

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: Getting Rid of the 30s and 40s Warm Blips

Post by Jim Steele » Fri Mar 30, 2018 7:43 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:I need to be able to see the reference, and subject it to the Ulrichweb.com test. I cannot do that from the less than sufficient detail given.
First if that is the problem, then you not be denigrating the evidence until you have checked it out.

Second, true skeptic evaluate the validity of any argument by comparing it to many sources of evidence and interpretations. Deferring to Ulrichweb is hardly a test of scientific validity.

Third, you were provided the citation. You then need to do a bit of homework so you can read the paper and discuss the evidence and specifics, not just engage in name-calling and dismissal. For example the post on groundwater links to my essay that discusses several peer reviewed papers with links to the actual papers that I refer to. Instead of reading those papers and having a respectful discussion, you refused to read and then got lost in your hateful attacks, that had nothing to do with that essay or its peer reviewed evidence.

This thread has many citations and links to the actual papers that all show the same thing, there was a measured warm spike in the 30s and 40s, a warm blip climate scientists discussed getting rid of.

I believe if you put aside your hate, we can have a scientific discussion.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11881
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Getting Rid of the 30s and 40s Warm Blips

Post by Lance Kennedy » Fri Mar 30, 2018 8:44 pm

There is no hate involved with me, Jim. But there is a love of genuine science. I am prepared to do a reasonable amount of back up research, but it is not my job to seek out your references. The references you have so far supplied do not fill me with confidence. You have offered your own writings, which anyone would reject as being too biased. You have offered cherry picked data. Yuk. You have offered irrelevancies. I am still waiting for sound, scientific, peer reviewed, reputable, relevant references that show good solid data.

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: Getting Rid of the 30s and 40s Warm Blips

Post by Jim Steele » Fri Mar 30, 2018 9:41 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:There is no hate involved with me, Jim. But there is a love of genuine science. I am prepared to do a reasonable amount of back up research, but it is not my job to seek out your references. The references you have so far supplied do not fill me with confidence. You have offered your own writings, which anyone would reject as being too biased. You have offered cherry picked data. Yuk. You have offered irrelevancies. I am still waiting for sound, scientific, peer reviewed, reputable, relevant references that show good solid data.
ROTFLMA. Indeed you posts are seething with hate and distortions.

You consistently make nebulous character assassination attempt.

An objective scientist, driven by an honest desire to unveil the truth, would specifically quote the examples they disagree with, provide the links to that quote, and then provide their evidence to support their disagreement to that specific statement.

But you NEVER do that.

You only engage in hateful personal attacks. You suggest all contrary evidence must be "cherrypicked", "irrelevant", and part of some grand "conspiracy".Then you search the web for other hateful bloggers to support your hate filled rants and personal attack. Your seething hatred is sadly obvious.

The one and only way to show you are sincerely interested unveiling the truth and promote objective science is to quote specifically what I have said, provide a link and then present your evidence that supports your rebuttal and provide the links. You NEVER do! Remember consensus is not evidence. Please put aside your hate and seek objective and honest scientific debate.

Image
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11881
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Getting Rid of the 30s and 40s Warm Blips

Post by Lance Kennedy » Fri Mar 30, 2018 9:52 pm

Not true, Jim.

Take the cherry picked graph of temperature rise in NZ which you posted, from 1998 to 2016. I posted a reference from NIWA, showing the real temperature rise over 100 years, and pointed out how that showed the true long term trend which was deliberately hidden by whatever cheats drew up the graph you posted.

I have an interest in truth, as established by good science. You do not get that with cherry picked data.

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: Getting Rid of the 30s and 40s Warm Blips

Post by Jim Steele » Fri Mar 30, 2018 10:19 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Not true, Jim.

Take the cherry picked graph of temperature rise in NZ which you posted, from 1998 to 2016 in NZ to counter your personal experience. I posted a reference from NIWA, showing the real temperature rise over 100 years, and pointed out how that showed the true long term trend which was deliberately hidden by whatever cheats drew up the graph you posted.

I have an interest in truth, as established by good science. You do not get that with cherry picked data.
There you go again Lance. I posted a graph that showed no warming from 1998 to 2016.The graph of temperature rise in NZ from 1998 to 2016 in NZ was offered to counter your personal experience claiming otherwise. You do not have a personal experience since 1900.

The graph was not posted to show there was no warming since 1900! But you reframed everything to then embark on an accusatory rant and hateful ad Homs that the graph was cherrpicking. That would only be true in your fabricated time frame since 1900. But that was never the discussion. Please, stop using the dishonest bait and switch tactics of low life businessmen.

I have NEVER argued that the world has not warmed since the Little Ice Age ended. The purpose of this post was to share that there are hundreds of observations showing that the world warmed from 1900 to the 1940s. But since the 1940s there was a cooling and then a warming such that there has been little warming since the 1930s. That begs the question of what are the cause of such natural climate change!

An objective scientist would ask, why has that pattern happened? What are the climate drivers? Co2 concentrations do not correlate with the observed pattern.

Instead you keep whining about cherrypicking, as if questioning the causes of oscillating temperatures was not good science. The only reason anyone would behave as you are doing, is that they are blinded by their hate. You hate that the world is naturally changing. You hate that scientific interpretations are constantly changing. You want science to stagnate and you want everyone to stop questioning, just because there is some mythical consensus was created. But that is NEVER good science. Listen to Einstein!

Lance you try to condemn me simply for questioning! But questioning is the foundation of good science! It is a must!

Image
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11881
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Getting Rid of the 30s and 40s Warm Blips

Post by Lance Kennedy » Fri Mar 30, 2018 10:42 pm

Not only has the world been warming since the industrial revolution, but the rate of warming is accelerating. The cause is human activity.

This is the finding of climate scientists. Do you agree, Jim ?

The thing about temperature graphs beginning at 1998 is that I have seen them before. All created by global warming deniers to distort reality in order to back up their false ideas. The first I saw was put out by the Cato Institute which, as I told you earlier, is financed by Big Oil (specifically, the Koch brothers). So when someone tries to use a temperature graph beginning in 1998, I know damn well it is a crock.

Questioning is fine. I have no problem with that. Distorting data is not fine.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11881
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Getting Rid of the 30s and 40s Warm Blips

Post by Lance Kennedy » Fri Mar 30, 2018 11:11 pm

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/u ... emperature

I have quoted New Zealand's NIWA. In the USA, the equivalent is the National Ocean and Atmosphere Administration, who made the reference above. They state that global warming since 1970 has averaged 0.17 C per decade, versus 0.07 C per decade average back to 1880. Warming is accelerating.

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: Getting Rid of the 30s and 40s Warm Blips

Post by Jim Steele » Fri Mar 30, 2018 11:36 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Not only has the world been warming since the industrial revolution, but the rate of warming is accelerating. The cause is human activity.

This is the finding of climate scientists. Do you agree, Jim ?

The thing about temperature graphs beginning at 1998 is that I have seen them before. All created by global warming deniers to distort reality in order to back up their false ideas. The first I saw was put out by the Cato Institute which, as I told you earlier, is financed by Big Oil (specifically, the Koch brothers). So when someone tries to use a temperature graph beginning in 1998, I know damn well it is a crock.
Lance, you simply DENY ALL the data provided in this thread showing that since the 30s the rate has DEFINITELY NOT accelerated . Please provide links to the papers showing the acceleration that you claim!

All honest scientists who read all the literature, as I do , readily see there is a TON of EVIDENCE contradicting claims of accelerating temperatures. Unlike you I have and again will provide links.

I became a skeptic because my restoration work in the Sierra Nevada revealed maximum temperatures in most of California had not exceeded the 1930s. Maximum temperatures at Yosemite as reported by the US Historical Climate network illustrate this and guided my research. http://landscapesandcycles.net/image/73 ... 90x294.png

Likewise several researchers report a "warming hole" in the eastern USA . Read Mechanisms Contributing to the Warming Hole and the Consequent U.S. East–West Differential of Heat Extremes. https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10 ... 11-00655.1

All the data from Lansner and Pederson (2018) shown in the graphs earlier in this thread illustrate NO acceleration across the globe! http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10. ... lCode=eaea

Greenland instrumental data show no acceleration. Read Chylek (2005) Greenland warming of 1920–1930 and 1995–2005. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com ... 06GL026510

Melting of Swiss glaciers was greatest in the 1940s. Read Huss (2009) Strong Alpine glacier melt in the 1940s due to enhanced solar . https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com ... 09GL040789

East Antarctica shows no warming trend as illustrated by the Antarctic Surveys stations such as Dumont D'urville https://goo.gl/FUpBqy. or https://goo.gl/qYJvRB

The Antarctic Peninsula that was once paraded as the canary in the climate change coal mine for its rapid warming in the 1990s has now shown no warming since! Read Turner (2016) Absence of 21st century warming on Antarctic Peninsula consistent with natural variability

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature18645

Please Lance, put aside your hatred and provide links to the scientific papers that you believe rebut this data! And then lets engage in respectful scientific debate!
Last edited by Jim Steele on Fri Mar 30, 2018 11:49 pm, edited 2 times in total.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: Getting Rid of the 30s and 40s Warm Blips

Post by Jim Steele » Fri Mar 30, 2018 11:45 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:https://www.climate.gov/news-features/u ... emperature

I have quoted New Zealand's NIWA. In the USA, the equivalent is the National Ocean and Atmosphere Administration, who made the reference above. They state that global warming since 1970 has averaged 0.17 C per decade, versus 0.07 C per decade average back to 1880. Warming is accelerating.
Nice try.

But you have hatefully argued that the data showing no warming between 1997 and 2016 was wrong and cherry picked. Thus you need to provide links to the data and the papers that suggest what I posted was wrong. I have never argued that the world has not warmed since the Little Ice Age. That is your dishonest red herring.

Why was there no warming since 1998?? Good scientists would seek to know! But linking to papers with timeframes that differ by several decades from what I reported is just a deceptive and meaningless tactic. Your hate truly blinds you to objective science!

Please, again I beseech you, put aside your hatred and move on to objective scientific analyses!

Image
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11881
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Getting Rid of the 30s and 40s Warm Blips

Post by Lance Kennedy » Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:16 am

There was, indeed, warming after 1998. The year 1998 was a warm blip due to a very intense El Nino event. The several years that followed were not El Nino years and so were cooler. But after that, the warming continued.

The cherry picking of 1998 to 2016 used the fact that 1997 was a lot cooler than 1998, so leaving it out gave the illusion of no warming. Ditto, 2017 was warmer than 2016, so leaving it out gave the illusion of no warming. The selection of 1998 to 2016 was pure dishonesty, cherry picking designed to give a false conclusion .

If you look instead at 100 years, you will see warm blips in 1940 and in 1998, but an overall warming trend.

One of the most important virtues for a good scientist is honesty. When data is cherry picked to give a false conclusion, that is dishonest, and represents crappy science.

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: Getting Rid of the 30s and 40s Warm Blips

Post by Jim Steele » Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:27 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:There was, indeed, warming after 1998. The year 1998 was a warm blip due to a very intense El Nino event. The several years that followed were not El Nino years and so were cooler. But after that, the warming continued.
I don't see your links. Only your personal claims.

Again, if we are to have a sincere scientific debate please show your links to data the contradicts ALL the data I have provided. I provided links as requested, so why are you not responding in kind???
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11881
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Getting Rid of the 30s and 40s Warm Blips

Post by Lance Kennedy » Sat Mar 31, 2018 1:01 am

Sorry. Error.
Last edited by Lance Kennedy on Sat Mar 31, 2018 1:06 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11881
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Getting Rid of the 30s and 40s Warm Blips

Post by Lance Kennedy » Sat Mar 31, 2018 1:05 am

https://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/clim ... ature-data

This reference includes a graph of NZ temperature. You will see the blips, and you will see the fact that there is overall a steady warming trend.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11881
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Getting Rid of the 30s and 40s Warm Blips

Post by Lance Kennedy » Sat Mar 31, 2018 1:14 am

https://eos.org/research-spotlights/upp ... ee-decades

Just to keep on the pressure, the reference above is about how the upper atmosphere is cooling at the same time the lower is warming. This is easily explained in terms of greenhouse gases which keep the warmth close to the Earth's surface. Not easily explained in other ways. Further evidence for anthropogenic global warming, and something I doubt Jim can answer.

PS, as a matter of interest, the same phenomenon has been seen on Venus, which is hot enough to melt lead at its surface, but has a stratosphere cooler than the Earths. Again, not explainable except with greenhouse gases.

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: Getting Rid of the 30s and 40s Warm Blips

Post by Jim Steele » Sat Mar 31, 2018 1:58 am

Lance,

Your link again emphasizes a 100 year trend, yet the data that your Link provides shows NO acceleration of warming since 1970. Thus your link supports my arguments and counters yours.

Furthermore that one link, limited to NZ, fails to refute all the data from around the globe that I provided. All the links to the published data were provided and you have not been able to refute a single one
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11881
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Getting Rid of the 30s and 40s Warm Blips

Post by Lance Kennedy » Sat Mar 31, 2018 3:30 am

Jim

You make a big deal out of localised data. As I have told you before, it is easy to cherry pick such data, because everywhere is different. It is the global picture that counts.

On accelerating warming, take another look at my N.O.A.A. reference. Current warming 0.17 C per decade versus an average of 0.07 if you take it back to 1880. That is a big increase.

The world is warming, and that warming is due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases. You have failed to explain the reduced infra red measured by satellites, or the cooling of the upper atmosphere. The lower atmosphere is warming, and greenhouse gases are increasing. CO2 has increased by a third again since the industrial revolution. We know from very careful lab tests how CO2 and other greenhouse gases absorb infra red. All this ties together into a picture of anthropogenic global warming.

And again, why do you think that you, a biologist, can be more expert in this field than 97% of the fully trained and experienced publishing climate scientists ?