1) In the first graph (1958 vs 2009) is evident that 2009 was hotter than 1958 : the 2009 graph is almost always over the median temperature line , the 1958 one instead fluctuates above and below that line.

2)In the second graph there is the result of JUST ONE STATION, NOT THE WHOLE ARCTIC. If you want compare temperatures, you MUST use the median of the whole arctic. If you had such a graphic, you will find:

a) Fast warming between 1890 and 1950
b) Fast cooling between 1950 and 1970 ( after the post-war economic boom, that liberated huge quantities of cooling sulfate aerosols)
c) Fast warming between 1970 and 1990 (after the sulfate emissions reductions in Europe to prevent smog and acid rain)
d) Explosive warming between 1990 and 2009 ( after the collapse of Soviet Agriculture System that lead to massive agricultural fires every spring to clear land , emmitting huge amounts of black carbon. Also , from 2005 began the “arctic amplification” feedback loop )

3) Finally, in the last graphic it is not shown the modern ( last 200 years , almost vertical) spike in CO2 concentrations, equal to the diference between glaciar and interglaciar periods. In the last 2 million years, C02 was never above 300 ppm. Now we are near 400 ppm.

We were led to believe in the UK that we would have a ‘Barbecue summer’ this year. I type this as the rain pitter-patters against my window on 28/7/09. Just what computer models does the Meteorolical Office use? The same as those used to predict global temperatures 80 years hence? Enough said. It is time to inject some reality and more importantly inject some cash into double blind research about so-called ‘climate change. Call me a cynic, but as long as scientific research follows the money, we’re never going to get a true picture. I call for all governments to fund blindly, independent research which is not looking over its shoulder for finance for the next project to examine so-called ‘Man-made global warming’. It is worth doing. If such research results should show that it is our fault, then we have to do something. If such results would show that other factors come into play and that politics is a prime factor, then we have to do something.

In the UK weather forecasting is something closely associated with the ‘black arts’. It is not science, though some would wish it were. Weather computer models repeatedly fail to deliver true forecasts. It would be interesting and enlightening to know whether (excuse the pun) other countries’ forecasters are any more accurate. (A research project there for someone?).

Meanwhile, some people called climatologists claim to have a greater insight into the workings of much wider (global) weather patterns. How is this? Climatology, like weather forecasting, is at best a ‘black science’. People are making what they think are inspired guesses about the future of our planet based on flawed computer models. The truth is: nobody ‘knows’. I call again for double blind research. It’s the only likely way we are going to get any where near the truth in investigating ‘climate change’.

Tony Surfleet

Global warming propaganda has clearly reached to point of critical mess.

May 14th, 2009 at 12:01 pm

“William Chapman replied to my email about the recent lack of updates at Cryosphere Today. Apparently a server upgrade broke their graphing software. They expect to have it fixed within the week. Then I’ll have to interpolate all the missing data. Groan.”
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg
This happened before.. so it wasn’t the satellite after all……..I won’t say anything about what will happen now but you can guess. All records of changes are now been kept here for posterity..
http://mikelm.blogspot.com/2007/09/left-image-was-downloaded-from.html

Steven Goddard (14:26:58) :

3×2,
So how come global temperatures have been going down since Beckham left?

Silly Moose, temperatures haven’t gone down it’s just that the heat has been in hiding. Temperatures will rise once more upon his return to the Temple.

“After taking pains to explain some basics, I leave you to your own devices. Have a good weekend.”

Thank you for your patience and courtesy.

Redistribution of energy within the system need not come to steady-state equilibrium and I never implied anything resembling the straw-man arguments you’re now putting up. Yes, small changes in one internal variable may lead to big changes in another (stores of energy may discharge), but energy is conserved in one form or another until it is eventually radiated into space. The fundamental issue is where the power is coming from to maintain energy levels in all operations and where it’s going. Power cannot be reused or amplified; it needs to be generated.

From statements such as “the system is non-linear, because of the delays” and the obscure “the feedback is nearly 100%” it’s evident that rigorous system analysis is not your field. After taking pains to explain some basics, I leave you to your own devices. Have a good weekend.

“Temperature is an intensive property of bodies, indicating their internal energy. So when you say that both system input and output is temperature, the question arises of what and where and maintained by what power source?”

We have already agreed that the sun is the energy source. You can choose the temperature of the troposphere or the upper ocean, your choice.

“Any rigorous approach to climate as a planetary system can only have the solar power source as input–rather than some unspecified temperature– and radiated power into space as output. Everything else, including all capacitance (storage) effects with their attendant delays is just internal internal redistribution of energy within the system.”

So, by this point of view, the temperature of the troposphere is coming to equilibrium. Except it’s not.

“So, where’s the feedback?”

I gave you two examples. The system is non-linear because of the delays. The feedback is nearly 100%, but the system in the box is continuously evolving. Some oscillations of the output are repeated in time, some are not. The insolation changes somewhat with time, also. The unanswered question is whether change in insolation is the primary driver of long-term climate, or whether other effects, e.g. albedo changes due to outside causes, dominate.

Now you’re reduced to conspiracy. I’d forgotten how effective a method that is in proving hypotheses.

You stripped my entire post? There were clearly no curses, harsh or crass language. Others receive surgical snips of offensive words. What was so offensive that it merited the removal of my entire post?

Reply: Tone, and I didn’t feel like an editorial rewrite. I’m not going to get into a back and forth on this.~ charles the moderator

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/daily.html

Well, here is the Wegman Report To Congress, in which Prof. Wegman et al. provide plenty of data and perform their own analyses: click

Prof. Wegman shows conclusively that the climate peer review process is rigged. The deck is stacked. The fix is in. Don’t think so? Read the report.

Calling those who don’t share storky’s views “spoiled-sport cry-babies” shows how little confidence he has in his position.

Reply: Try again. Be respectful or post elsewhere. Other posts may simply be deleted with no notice. ~ charles the moderator

“Meanwhile, the guys that told you the Mann-Bradley-Hughes’ ‘Hockey stick’ graph was wrong, McIntyre and McKitrick, have had 3 out of 4 of their data reconstructions deemed statistically invalid.”

That link is [snip]. The claim that MBH is valid was written by none other than the odious Caspar Amman — hardly an unbiased source.

Amman comes across as a thoroughly disreputable person, as Ray makes clear in his link: click

Those who haven’t yet read Bishop Hill’s “Caspar and the Jesus Paper” are in for a treat. Storky should read it, too. Can’t hurt. Might help.

[And for those interested in another view: click]