UAH Global temperature up slightly in September

UAH V5.5 Global Temp. Update for Sept. 2012: +0.34 deg. C

By Dr. Roy Spencer

As discussed in my post from yesterday, the spurious warming in Aqua AMSU channel 5 has resulted in the need for revisions to the UAH global lower tropospheric temperature (LT) product.

Rather than issuing an early release of Version 6, which has been in the works for about a year now, we decided to do something simpler: remove Aqua AMSU after a certain date, and replace it with the average of NOAA-15 and NOAA-18 AMSU data. Even though the two NOAA satellites have experienced diurnal drifts in their orbits, we have found that those drifts are in opposite directions and approximately cancel. (The drifts will be corrected for in Version 6.0).

The new interim dataset, Version 5.5, has a September, 2012 global lower tropospheric temperature anomaly of +0.34 deg. C (click for large version):

Note that the new v5.5 dataset brings our monthly anomalies over the last few years somewhat more in line with those from RSS, which have been running significantly cooler than ours. The trend change from v5.4 to v5.5, however, only decreases by 0.001 deg. C/decade. This is partly because the time series is now almost 34 years in length, and adjusting the last several months by 0.1 deg or so is not going to affect the long-term trend substantially.

Evidence of the divergence of Aqua from the two NOAA satellites during 2012 is shown in the next plot:

The global monthly differences between v5.5 and v5.4 are shown next, which reveals the rapid divergence in the last couple months of Aqua AMSU from the average of NOAA-15 1nad NOAA-18 AMSUs:

The Version 5.5 hemispheric and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average since January 2010 are:

YR MON GLOBAL NH SH TROPICS
2010 01 0.581 0.747 0.415 0.660
2010 02 0.542 0.623 0.461 0.738
2010 03 0.577 0.721 0.434 0.665
2010 04 0.416 0.609 0.223 0.596
2010 05 0.449 0.593 0.306 0.679
2010 06 0.376 0.430 0.321 0.464
2010 07 0.343 0.455 0.232 0.303
2010 08 0.376 0.480 0.273 0.216
2010 09 0.430 0.351 0.510 0.114
2010 10 0.278 0.232 0.324 -0.053
2010 11 0.208 0.316 0.100 -0.270
2010 12 0.141 0.207 0.075 -0.441
2011 01 0.022 0.036 0.007 -0.382
2011 02 -0.003 0.005 -0.011 -0.350
2011 03 -0.066 -0.013 -0.120 -0.336
2011 04 0.083 0.132 0.034 -0.233
2011 05 0.101 0.082 0.120 -0.061
2011 06 0.260 0.292 0.229 0.183
2011 07 0.343 0.290 0.396 0.169
2011 08 0.300 0.247 0.353 0.143
2011 09 0.290 0.280 0.301 0.128
2011 10 0.073 0.140 0.006 -0.152
2011 11 0.084 0.072 0.096 -0.060
2011 12 0.066 0.119 0.012 -0.033
2012 01 -0.134 -0.060 -0.203 -0.256
2012 02 -0.135 0.018 -0.289 -0.320
2012 03 0.051 0.119 -0.017 -0.238
2012 04 0.232 0.351 0.114 -0.242
2012 05 0.179 0.337 0.021 -0.098
2012 06 0.235 0.370 0.101 -0.019
2012 07 0.130 0.256 0.003 0.142
2012 08 0.208 0.214 0.202 0.062
2012 09 0.338 0.349 0.327 0.155

Again, Version 5.5 is only meant as an interim solution until our Version 6 is ready, which has new corrections for diurnal drift and an improved calibration strategy for the old MSU instruments.

Our reluctance to make these changes sooner is partly due to the flak we get when we are accused of adjusting temperatures downward for no good reason. There is now sufficient evidence (alluded to above) to make such adjustments.

About these ads

43 thoughts on “UAH Global temperature up slightly in September

  1. What is quite interesting about this change of sources to eliminate the drift is its affect on long term tendancies.

    As Dr Spencer correctly points out , this change only makes a minimal chagne to the 30y linear “trend” because it on affects a very short period. However, if you compare the current plot reproduced here with the same thing from September , the affect on the fitted polynomial spline is quitre revealing: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_Aug_2012.png

    As Dr Spencer points out this change brings their processing of the data more into line with RSS groups work, which had been showing less warming than UAH recently.

    Despite the month of Sept being a bit higher, the down turn since 2000 is becoming a lot clearer.

  2. The peak actually seems to be nearer 2005-2007. Here we see similar tendancies in AMO and cyclone enegy:

  3. Longer cyclone data vs *no detrend* AMO. (previous was the usual AMO index which may be misleading in this context since it is a detrended index).

  4. what was the GLOBAL temp, before; so they can say that is up by 0,34C?!?!? Nobody knows what’s the GLOBAL temp, to save his life – but they know that’s gone up by 0,34C? wow!!! That is to one hundredth of a degree precision…? Are they sure that isn’t up by 0,35C, or 0,32C? You fellas are asking for bullshine – you get bullshine, they treat you sometimes as children, other times as mushrooms; lucky you.

    On 99,9999% of the planet’s surface areas, nobody is monitoring; where is monitored, only the hottest minute is taken in consideration; even though every other one of the 1439 minutes in 24h are just as important. Can one minute say in 100 of a degree precision about the every other of the 1439 minutes?! Ask yourself, fellas. If they had any respect for you – they wouldn’t be telling you all that bull.

  5. P. Solar says:
    However, if you compare the current plot reproduced here with the same thing from September , the affect on the fitted polynomial spline is quitre revealing:
    ________________________

    The fit is pretty much the same too, only last few years have visible differences. And it looks to me that maybe a different order polynomial may be involved, too. Dr. Spencer has used 3rd order and 4th order fits in the past but did not announce the order of these two.

    Note that any order polynomial fits have zero predictive value (including linear) so visually following the very end of the line has no scientific value.

    Anyway – that “post from yesterday” mentioned at the start of the article is very worth reading.

  6. Using the UAH data and plotting NH and SH separtely is quite informative. Here I plot the rate of change. Since we’re all interested in “climate change” we’d better look at rate of change rather than guess it from the temp time series or fit silly straight lines.

    Here we can see that the “alarming” warming of 1990s was mainly due to a change in SH , where there was a very weak cool phase. This was not a *global* event but a SH change. (Hard to attribute that to CO2 ! )

    Also the the post 2000 decline in rate of change is clearly seen. Again , ignoreing the cycles, it seems to have gone into negative territory in about 2007.

    (The last 18m is not available with this filter without using Mannian data stuffing, sorry).

  7. The downturn in temperatures over the last decade can usefully be seen here in CET, the oldest dataset in the world

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/

    THe record actually dates back to 1660 and the current temperatures are similar to the 1730’s (but still historically hgh in the instrumental record.The Met office make an allowance of 0.2C for Uhi. Britain is a small island thaT has been descrbed as one large heat sink. ArguablY the \uhi allowance shoud be greatEr than 0.2C

    tonyb

  8. Thankyou Dr. Roy Spencer for years of sattelite data collection which by all accounts you are doing your best to keep accurate and representative. I don’t underestimate the fine tolerances with which you have to stuggle with. Good work.

  9. P. Solar, the word you want is “effect,” meaning result, not “affect,” which is a verb meaning to change or bring about. Weather affects people’s lives in many ways, and the effect of (say) an Arctic cold front coming through is to cool things off for a bit.

  10. The (fitting?) curve in the graph is very misleading. I would not bet for any cooling in the following years. The temperature stays in an up-channel that is not broken and holds on.

  11. Roy Spencer writes: “Our reluctance to make these changes sooner is partly due to the flak we get when we are accused of adjusting temperatures downward for no good reason.”

    And that implies UAH TLT will be dropping with version 6. It’ll be interesting to see if the adjustments impact what seems to be the additional variability in recent years.

  12. alex says:
    October 10, 2012 at 4:31 am

    The (fitting?) curve in the graph is very misleading. I would not bet for any cooling in the following years. The temperature stays in an up-channel that is not broken and holds on.

    ______________________________________________

    LoL…

    spoken like a true wramista… NA NA NA NA NA NA iI cant hear you the warming will continue… na na na na …

    What is it with facts as basic reasoning skills that these people lack the ability to see and use? Everything on earth has a sign wave to its function because they are cyclical and repetitive systems.

  13. stefanthedenier says:
    October 9, 2012 at 10:42 pm

    what was the GLOBAL temp, before; so they can say that is up by 0,34C?!?!? Nobody knows what’s the GLOBAL temp, to save his life – but they know that’s gone up by 0,34C? wow!!! That is to one hundredth of a degree precision…? Are they sure that isn’t up by 0,35C, or 0,32C?
    etc etc
    ———————–

    That’s the kind of nonsense that gives ‘deniers’ a bad name!

  14. Drat, the only temp data that I trusted now has to be adjusted. Dr. Spencer has been doing Yeoman’s work, and I trust he’ll do a good job in correct the drifts. But it still sucks. All the land data has all sorts of corrections which invariably make the past colder and ignores UHI. And now the satellites need corrections. The satellite will still be the best, but it sucks regardless.

  15. alex says:
    October 10, 2012 at 4:31 am

    The (fitting?) curve in the graph is very misleading.

    That curve is a fourth order polynomial with little or no predictive quality. Roy normally adds a disclaimer to that chart.

  16. The sinusoidal curve you are using may be mathematically correct within the limits of dataset, but as we are always complaining about the warmists cherrypicking endpoints to justify the agenda-driven trends they use, perhaps you could add some pre-satelite, pre-79 data and cause the trend to show the temperature drop prior to 1979. As it is, the curve indicates an uptick in the trend corresponding to a nice continuation of the sinusoidal function. Which, prior to ’79, it did not do.

    The point of scientific exposition is not to be mathematically correct, but to correctly represent what is going on: that is probably the closest to describing the complaint we have about the IPCC and Gore-ists. The data they use does not represent reality but is a prop for their agenda. Unlike the warmists, the skeptical argument is not based on emotions or politics, but reason and facts. We should always attempt to represent reality, even if a modification of our math with asterisk and explanation is required.

    Sometimes mathematically correct, statistical analysis is misleading: an average human being has one breast and one testicle by mathematics, but I doubt anyone would consider that statistic to be representative of our species. What the others do, we should strive not to do.

  17. My own dataset shows global temps down about 0.2 degrees C since 2000
    hadcrut3 reports it is 0.1
    looking at UAH now, it looks more or less like zero since 2000
    but, looking at the 13 mnth moving average (red)
    you can clearly see that something went wrong 2009-2011
    Anyway, earth stores its energy in waters, in vegetation and in chemicals, etc. and so on,
    so what is coming out is bound to be confusing;
    by looking at means, you are all looking at the wrong variable.
    try looking at maximum temps. over time

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

    there should be good records going way back into time…

  18. Doug,
    Dr Spencer runs the satellite sounding project at Huntsville. Why on earth would he or should he include non-satellite data into his database? Anyone who follows Dr Spencer and/or uses his data is fully aware of the limitations of using such a young data-set. And if I’m not mistaken, Dr. Spencer uses a 4th Degree polynomial fit for display purposes. The trends are in no way predictive.

  19. Come on people, seems Dr. Spencer was instructed to do so. What, do you want he and John to lose their jobs and be replaced with Hansen and the GISS crew? Just label it as an Adjustabama to the dataset and move along.

    Everyone should know by now that the slope of the global temperature average plots are not being adjusted for the real UHI. There is no downward adjustment in the later years for the huge increase in population and structures worldwide. That is but a one-time adjustment, not cumulative. See, here we are speaking of a population-neutral slope, not the individual temperature readings.

  20. Climate reason says

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/09/uah-global-temperature-up-slightly-in-september/#comment-1105765

    henry says
    good show, Tony!
    but I am saying that 1961-1990 average (=zero =anomaly) might not be completely right in terms of my graph

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

    What happens if you do an 88 year average, e.g. 1907 to 1995?

    Bill H says
    Everything on earth has a sign wave to its function because they are cyclical and repetitive systems.
    Henry says
    why did you not tell me this before I did all this work for which nobody is giving me any money or credits…)

  21. JamesD says: “Drat, the only temp data that I trusted now has to be adjusted. Dr. Spencer has been doing Yeoman’s work, and I trust he’ll do a good job in correct the drifts. But it still sucks. All the land data has all sorts of corrections which invariably make the past colder and ignores UHI. And now the satellites need corrections. The satellite will still be the best, but it sucks regardless.”

    Do you really imagine there were no adjustments before today ?!

    You need to read up on how they measure temperature from satellites.

    All we can do is read up on how it’s done and decide whether we have confidence in the person doing the job. I believe the Roy Spencer is a trustworthy scientist doing objective science to get the best from the satellite data.

    His adjustments are usually small and are not always in the same direction. He is open an responds to criticism. That all gives me confidence.

    If you want a real laugh , try digging into how they work out sea level from a satellite.

    I think UAH LTL is one of best guides we have , unfortunately it is still rather a short period of data to get the big picture of a system that has a dominant cycle of about 60y.

  22. alex says:
    The (fitting?) curve in the graph is very misleading.

    No, what is misleading you is your own interpretation of what the curve means. It is a polynomial spline that smooths the data. That helps see the long term tendency in where it has been, it does not tell you where it will go next.

    As we saw with this update a relatively small change can alter how the curve turns.

    No one ever suggested that a polynomial was a proper model for climate behaviour so no one expects it to be predictive. However, it does help to see that there *has been* a down turn since 2007.

    A number of different physical climate indices all indicate that warming stopped _accelerating_ in 1995, what warming slowed to the point of becoming cooling somewhere around 2005-2007. I would expect, from patterns in longer datasets that that cooling will continue until around 2040, give or take the short term ups and downs.

  23. P.Solar says
    I would expect, from patterns in longer datasets that that cooling will continue until around 2040, give or take the short term ups and downs.
    Henry says
    it seems you are correct on that statement, give or take a few years,
    but how did you figure that out>?

  24. Doug Proctor says
    The sinusoidal curve you are using may be mathematically correct within the limits of dataset,
    henry says
    quite frankly, the data exhibited in the curve is not sinusoidal at all, it is a polynominal, and because it has a correlation of less than 0.5 it should not be shown here here at all,
    because it simply has no significance

  25. alex says:
    October 10, 2012 at 4:31 am
    The (fitting?) curve in the graph is very misleading. I would not bet for any cooling in the following years. The temperature stays in an up-channel that is not broken and holds on.

    You can bet on future years’ temperatures on Intrade, here: https://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/

  26. Various:

    Okay, it’s a polynomial, not a sinusoidal. We are dealing with cycles. And if we put in some smoothing curve to gives us some sense of what is going on beyond the short-term variations, then we should do so if what we get reflects what overall we believe/can show is going on.

    The polynomial result is not so bad as a pattern if you think that that is the pattern inside the variations. Maybe not mathematically, but if all this AMO and PDO and solar cycles are influencing what the temperatures do, we’ll get something similar. Though correlation is not causation, if there is a causation we should see some correlation, right?

    If, as various say, the trend is non-indicative, then I guess we should drop it. So there are no shorter cycles showing up? And sure, it is satellite data, but it should connect to prior data, otherwise our satellite “proxy” data has little value.

    Drop the trend or adjust the trend, or say there is no trend. That last seems weird.

  27. Roy Spencer writes: “Our reluctance to make these changes sooner is partly due to the flak we get when we are accused of adjusting temperatures downward for no good reason.”

    To quote Winston Churchill: “Dont let the buggers get you down.”

  28. NotTheAussiePhilM says: ”stefanthedenier says:what was the GLOBAL temp, before; so they can say that is up by 0,34C?!?!? Nobody knows what’s the GLOBAL temp, to save his life – but they know that’s gone up by 0,34C? wow!!! That is to one hundredth of a degree precision…? Are they sure that isn’t up by 0,35C, or 0,32C? ”That’s the kind of nonsense that gives ‘deniers’ a bad name!”

    NotTheAussie, if exposing the scam gives a bad name, so be it; but that’s only in the company of con-artists and fanatics. Galileo got a bad name, for exposing that the universe is not spinning around the earth. I’m proud to be given a bad name by shameless con-artist. The truth always wins on the end. 2] if somebody suggests to know what was the ”GLOBAL” temperature 600-800y ago; he is not talking about the global temp, but about his own integrity and honesty. At that time, people were scared to sail more than 30km west of Portugal, not to fall off the planet. .About 70% of the planet didn’t exist, the earth was flat. Who was collecting the daily temperature for them in Australia, Galapagos, Antarctic and mid pacific?!? By what model thermometers?! Is it written in the waves .of Pacific and Antarctic oceans, what was the daily temp for all those times; please explain.

    Global temp is not as human temp; if gets warmer by 2C under the armpit = the whole body is warmer by that much – ”GLOBAL” temperature is completely the opposite; when one part gets warmer than normal – by the laws of physics, other part / parts MUST get colder.than normal!!!

    http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/q-a/

    the second post will give you the answers, for the questions you haven’t asked yet, ask Tony Brown. Silencing the truth, doesn’t change the truth, only conmen’s nightmares increase, and increase, and increase; are you scared from real proofs, NotAusie?!.Do you suffer from ‘Truthphobia” also?!

    http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/2012/08/25/skeptics-stinky-skeletons-from-their-closet/

  29. HenryP says: ”My own dataset shows global temps down about 0.2 degrees C since 2000”

    Henry. what was the GLOBAL temperature for year 2000, so you know that is gone down by 0,2C?! Do you believe in what you are driveling?!

    #2:”cooling will continue until around 2040”
    Henry, your crystal ball has lots of thin air for harvesting from…. can you tell us the wining numbers of lottery, at least for the next 4 months?! Would be much easier, than to con yourself for 30y in advance. Meteorologist have problem predicting the temp for their local area past next Monday… you can predict 30y in advance; FOR THE WHOLE PLANET…? Did you still Tony’s tarot cards? Shame, shame!!!

  30. StefanTHEDENIER says
    Henry. what was the GLOBAL temperature for year 2000, so you know that is gone down by 0,2C?! Do you believe in what you are driveling?!
    ehhhh…..
    I don’t know exactly the global temperature, it is not important, is it,? …but I know the difference;

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/04/23/global-cooling-is-here/

    Study statistics, do all the courses, especially how to do regression and distributions, learn all about sampling and sampling technigues, probability theory, tests and hypotheses, etc
    otherwise you will never be able to evaluate if your sample is representative and whether the change observed is significant…
    Once you have done all those stats courses we can probably talk.

    oh, and whilst you are at it, change your name, because by addressing me with that name you seem to start off by indicating that you are denying what I have measured which is another form of saying that I am lying. Not very fruitful if you want to engage in serious debate with scientists. In fact, next time I will probably ignore you if you ask me something again.

  31. Doug Proctor
    So there are no shorter cycles showing up?

    Henry says
    looking at energy in, it is dominated by a 88 year cycle which is like a sinus wave, consisting of 2 parts, 44 years cooling and 44 years of warming.
    What earth does with that cycle (energy out) is different, mostly because earth stores its energy in waters, vegetations, chemicals, etc. Evaluating average global temp. is like a nightmare anf if you don’t first find that 88 year cycle you would not even find any pattern that makes sense… as these UAH results are showing…
    Remember I am saying that that curve is not right even though it may look a bit right.
    It seems only dumb climate scientists keep looking at the wrong variable…

  32. HenryP October 10, 2012 at 10:27 pm, said: ‘’I don’t know exactly the global temperature, it is not important, is it,? …but I know the difference’’

    You know the difference, from WHAT?! Henry, one cannot compare one unknown with another unknown; you should know that much. (as: you cannot know the distance between you and my house – if you are lost, and don’t know where my house is) Honest person would never compare the difference between two unknowns. If you are a genuine scientist; then I must be the Pope of Rome.

    If the temp between two monitoring places of 100km, temp goes up by 2C – between the next two monitoring places of 1300km goes down by 1C – No honest statistician would use that data; unless the difference in size of different areas is supplied. B] in-between the smaller space of monitoring in 100km radius; there are 500000 different variation in temperatures, and changes every 10-15 minutes. C] the ‘’hottest’’ minute of the day that is taken in consideration, is not at the ‘’same’’ minute every day. D] some days, between 9-12 noon is only a degree or two different than the hottest minute – other times is difference up to 6-7C – normal statistician would have demanded that information first; before touching the calculator. Because all the minutes in the other 3h are much more important, than that one single minute; just because is the hottest,.

    Thermometer is good for monitoring room temp, but on the open; in 800000km2 one thermometer…? they monitor on 4000 places, for the WHOLE planet…? Same as getting the number of apples individual tree of those 6 apple-trees produced – to ‘’statistically’’ calculate: how many grains of sand Sahara has…? 4000 thermometers are not sufficient to monitor the temperature in every room of Hilton hotels… those rooms say nothing about the temp in Patagonia, Easter Island, or New Guinea. Henry, when blindfolded, you don’t count the sheep and the flies, just to make fool of yourself and to harm the innocent. If it shows COLDER on the 0,00000000000000000001% of the planet’s surface area which is monitored; how do you know that on the other 99,99999999999000000% of the planet, where isn’t monitored; IS NOT GONE WARMER?! Where did you get your diploma from, in Disneyland? B] you don’t want to answer next time? WRONG!!! You can’t answer; because: when you are awakened on your sandpit and presented the reality / real proofs, facts -> you are scared from the reality.

    Water off South Africa is colder by 10C, because of more OZONE?! Henry; because of lies like that – trillion dollars has being ripped off, from the working / honest people – children are brainwashed in schools – because few thousand nutters like you are drowning in their own drivel – so; you are not just lying, but actively supporting the biggest ever robbery.

    What makes sharp decrease in water temp off Australia and off South Africa is: 1] increase of ‘’dry heat’’ in those two places -> that extra dry heat; for example, from Australia – destroys the moisture west over the Indian ocean -> less moisture goes south to Antarctic; to replenish the ice, to cover the surrounding waters around Antarctic. B] when current takes water from around Australia to Antarctic – there is not enough ice, to shield the water from the unlimited coldness in the air (water temp by the time reaches Antarctic’s beaches is 3-4-5C ABOVE zero / the air temp is minus -30 – -40C – without ice as shield / insulator -> that water absorbs much more coldness and is taking it north towards south Africa. 2] Because the shonky ‘’scientists’’ from the organized crime, that you fully support, are vandalizing the ice, with ice Crusher ships making lots of corridors -> then brittle ice brakes off 1000000 times larger chunks -> much more water is exposed to the unlimited coldness -> currents take much colder water north -> colder water = less evaporation = less moisture for creation for next season’s ice (chain reaction) So, blaming ozone, is camouflaging the real problems – your lies are doing much bigger damages than your twisted mind can comprehend. (Your GLOBAL cooling is inside your sick mind; not on other people’s globe). Have a nice day, Henry.

  33. STEPHANTHEDENIER says (to henry)
    your lies are doing much bigger damages than your twisted mind can comprehend. (Your GLOBAL cooling is inside your sick mind; not on other people’s globe).
    henry says
    Come on doc, you are beginning to sound like those white (AWB) supremacists 30 years ago, who were threatening me (fighting against apartheid).
    Here is my latest estimate of global cooling:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/05/new-paper-on-climate-sensitivity-estimates-1-1-%c2%b1-0-4-c-for-a-doubling-of-co2/#comment-1107855

    Clearly, you have not got a clue as to how I got my results.
    Do the stats yourself (or do the courses – you won’t regret it)
    before you judge me.

    Anyways,are you really that much worried about the truth? Does it threaten your existence?
    Don’t worry about that. Worry about the real Truth (when you have to face death)
    John 18 vs. 37&38
    Have a blessed weekend (don’t forget to go to church).
    .

  34. I suspect “stephanthedenier” is an example of Poe’s Law (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe's_Law). This term originally came from discussions of Creationist websites, and basically says that it is impossible to parody these sites as no matter what you say, someone, somewhere will believe it is serious.
    “stephanthedenier” and his site are, I think, deliberate extreme exaggerations designed to parody the wilder end of the skeptic community with the intention of discrediting more rational skeptical objections by association.

  35. jimmi_the_dalek says: ”discrediting more rational skeptical objections by association”

    you couldn’t be more wrong 1] I’m pointing out that: Skeptics are shooting blanks at the opponents; and the real bullets are using to shoot themselves in the foot, as target practice. In other words; to open their eyes, because the Warmist are wining with lies b] they don’t have respect for the fake Skeptics; because what the fakes use – most of the people that invented that crap – are in the Warmist crap.

    ‘Rational” skeptical crap, expecting to be believed by the Warmist, and the people on the street:
    1] galactic dust effects Sahara, but not Amazon basin… b] same cuckoo ‘rationale” about sunspots effecting one part of a continent, but not the other; is got: unlucky stars…?! 1000’s of professional Warmist know that: only 10 years ago, nobody was knowing about sunspots – but the criminal element in the Fake’s camp – inserted sunspots effect for last 1000 years. Warmist can prove those lies any time they want, but are keeping it under the sleeve.

    Skeptics pretending to know what was the ”GLOBAL” temperature 400y ago – 800y ago, 2000y ago, 6000y ago. GLOBAL temperature overall …?! By that, they are admitting to the Warmist: that they are bigger liars than the Warmist = code of silence about the truth. What kind of rationale is: to lie about Vikings on Greenland = their phony proof of warmer climate. b] old pictures with clouds used as proof of wetter climate. Jimmi, desperadoes using lies / crap are irrational, illogical, common sense and honesty deficient! Shooting the toy manufacturers with their made water pistols… you talk ”rationale skeptic”?????

    My proofs are real proofs, ”SUPPORTED” by the laws of physics – that’s why the desperation to silence me. If one believes in his knowledge, would like the opponent’s proofs to be heard – so that people can judge for themselves. I’ve challenged many of you – you cannot proof that my formulas are wrong, why not; it;s a soft target – both camps; com-on! You don’t have a dignity to prove that you have being wrong, b] you cannot prove the laws of physics are wrong; but sick comments like yours, are regular. For your own benefit: all I know about religion, I learned from Hollywood epics (because i grow up east of the iron curtain). Nevertheless, you bringing to ridicule religion in the debate – here is some fodder for you: 1] the good Lord made oxygen & nitrogen to expand when get warmer than normal / to shrink when get colder – so that they can regulate overate heat in the troposphere to be always the same. Unless one of you sods can prove otherwise – both camps are proven 100% wrong!!!

    The name ”Climate Change Skeptics” was given to you guys, by the Warmist. Not Global Warming Skeptics, because that would have being spot on – but Warmist branded them as ”Climate Change Skeptics” People on the street are starting to see that; it was all lies but are reluctant to take seriously people that don’t believe that climate is constantly changing. My mission is: to prove that: climatic changes have NOTHING to do with the Warmist or Fake’s phony GLOBAL warming. Truth always wins on the end. I have the solid proofs – what you guys have, is Hansen’s & Plimer’s dysentery. when drowning inside their dysentery – you cannot smell the roses i have

    Jimmi, from 11 posts / pages I have on my blog – you cannot prove that I’m wrong on anything; instead, you resort in gossiping…?! That should be a proof to a person with common sense, that I’m correct. Here are fake Skeptic’s ” RATIONAL woo-doo doo-doo” http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/2012/08/25/skeptics-stinky-skeletons-from-their-closet/
    here are part of my proofs: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/climate/

    .

Comments are closed.