Josh writes in with a new cartoon.
This is a spoof on the xkcd.com/1321/ cartoon that was doing the Twitter rounds the other day.
First, the XKCD cartoon on global warming:
![cold[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/cold1.png)
Now, here’s Josh’s spoof of it:
Josh writes in with a new cartoon.
This is a spoof on the xkcd.com/1321/ cartoon that was doing the Twitter rounds the other day.
First, the XKCD cartoon on global warming:
Now, here’s Josh’s spoof of it:
“First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is”
It would seem the the faux intellectualism at XKCD failed to grasp the delicious irony of what they wrote.
@ur momisugly Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter) on February 2, 2014 at 3:48 pm:
From http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2524252/How-Londoners-celebrated-River-Thames-freezing-frost-fairs-ice.html, from Museum of London’s curator of archaeological collections Meriel Jeater:
Thus it was a case of obstructed river flow that lead to the Thames freezing, not the temperature/climate.
So technically humans are responsible for the lack of Frost Fairs, by putting up a different bridge.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) and richardscourtney
Its 12 years – and whilst year to year differences have been small, 9 of the warmest 10 years have been since (and including 2002).
Didn’t the engineering done on the Thames to control flooding pretty much guarantee that it can’t freeze over?
Please add a mouseover text “flashback to 1975” with link to spoof cartoon of characters as stick kids during Chicago heat wave. Same dialogue but w temp reversal.
From James Abbott on February 2, 2014 at 4:22 pm:
Now dearie, I have shown my work. You need to show where you got your numbers or teacher will have to rap your knuckles with the ruler for telling unsubstantiated non-truths. Got it?
The cartoon is classic warmists sleight of hand. Their theory is global warming, as measured by the the global mean temperature anomaly. Now we all know it’s on a so-called pause. But what do they talk about? The frequency of cold days in St. Louis. Sorry Warmists, stick to discussing your beloved global mean temperature anomaly.
Oh goody, a cartoon chart. I wonder if it has any basis in reality. Has St. Louis
temperature not dropped below freezing even one day since 1998?
My disappointment with XKCD has to do with the absence of hot days.
“1954, 1963 and 1936 had more days greater than 90F. 1936 topped consecutive days above 90F. And 1936, 1934 and 1954 topped the list of days over 100F. And 1936 was the year with most consecutive days above 100F.
And the red circled years are the Least number of days above 90F and 100F. Notice there are recent years without any 100F days at all.
And while I didn’t highlight it, notice that in 1954 22 days were above 100F. Only 18 were in Jun/Jul/Aug. The other 4 were int the spring or fall. Now thats hot.”
http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/xkcd-and-global-warming-and-st-louis/
kadaka (KD Knoebel)
NASA GISS 5 year running mean shows plateau starts around 2002.
9 out of 10 warmest years since and including 2002 is on both the NASA GISS and NOAA data sets.
James Abbott:
At February 2, 2014 at 4:22 pm you write
Buy a dictionary and look up the words warm and warming.
They do not mean the same thing.
I am the tallest I have ever been and I have had 50 of the tallest years in the last 50 years. Obviously, according to you, I am growing.
You already have zero credibility here and now you want to gain negative credibility by emulating ‘Trougher’ Yeo!
If you want to obtain some – any – credibility answer my question you have been avoiding for a week. I will ignore – and I commend everyone to ignore – anything and everything you post unless and until you answer the question. I gave that advice yesterday and dbstealey eventually admitted that he had discovered – to his cost – that he had erred by ignoring my advice.
Richard
kadaka (KD Knoebel):
Thankyou for your reply at February 2, 2014 at 3:34 pm to my post at February 2, 2014 at 3:07 pm.
My post – as you may have anticipated from me – provided the technically correct answer.
Your answer concurs with the point from Timothy Sorenson at February 2, 2014 at 3:30 pm. You each say that the averaging may not be technically correct but it does provide an excellent debating point because people who object on terchnical grounds can be given a ‘What’s good for the goose’ answer with respect to model ensemble results.
Clearly, what is ‘right’ here is a value judgement.
If you are involved in a technical discussion then I am right but if you are involved in a debate of so-called ‘climate science’ then you and Timothy Sorenson are right.
Provided what I have said here is understood, then I am willing to withdraw because value judgements are opinions so do not have a unique ‘right’. However, I hope my contribution has been helpful.
Richard
richardscourtney
Maybe the only way I could gain credibility with you is to agree with everything you say ?
You said
“I will ignore – and I commend everyone to ignore – anything and everything you post unless and until you answer the question. I gave that advice yesterday and dbstealey eventually admitted that he had discovered – to his cost – that he had erred by ignoring my advice.”
As to your demands to answer questions – I did answer and you chose to ignore the obvious fact that the model AW was using to demonstrate temperature sensitivity to CO2 had the unfortunate problem of collapsing for past known climates (the ice ages).
If you want to put a different question, or even the same one in a different way, fire away. Unlike you I am happy to discuss – though would prefer you to leave out the throw-away insults (eg egregious troll).
James Abbott:
re your tripe at February 2, 2014 at 5:00 pm.
ANSWER THE QUESTION.
Richard
richardscourtney
Is that tied to a chair with a light shining in my face ?
Seems like every time a sceptic loses the argument they blow up.
As the story goes, in the world of Harry Potter, a magical quill records the names of newborn wizards and witches who are destined to study magic.
Not in any of the books I ever read (over a dozen times).
Some muggle must have made a dumb movie or something.
James Abbott:
It seems you have forgotten the question.
I remind you that it is
quoted text
You have raised the “committed warming” on two threads which you have trolled. So
ANSWER THE QUESTION
Richard
This is a repost because formatting destroyed it above
James Abbott:
It seems you have forgotten the question.
I remind you that it is
You have raised the “committed warming” on two threads which you have trolled. So
ANSWER THE QUESTION
Richard
Nobody calls fraud, loudly. Well, a few….
James Abbott says: @ur momisugly February 2, 2014 at 4:48 pm
… 9 out of 10 warmest years since and including 2002 is on both the NASA GISS and NOAA data sets.
So? Overall the temperature is DECLINING from the Holocene Optimum. We should be grateful the temperature has not oscillated as badly as it has in other interglacials.
Graph 1
Graph 2
Graph 3
The overall temperature trend is DOWN not up.
Graph 3
The myopia on the part of warmists I find incredible.
No matter what argument either side uses, the logical position remains that the burden of proof is clearly on the alarmist because the AGwarm-earthers were the ones to 1) propose it and 2) argue that we must do something (very destructive if they are wrong) about it.
No proof has been given. Moreover, it appears that the weight of the evidence is clearly on the other side of the AGW hypothesis. In addition, these are the crooks which have the overwhelming conflicts of economic interest in their corners (Fact: $76B plus given to them to date, by conservative estimates).
“What I recall are a few comments pointing out that CONUS has had declining temperatures for the past ten years.”
Oh. Noted. Now that this evidently misaligned data has been pointed out on here, the climate crew will get it adjusted and have it leveled out at least by 2015. Patience please, getting peer reviewed papers passed through for such algorithmic alterations does take some time to perform properly and refute proof.
From James Abbott on February 2, 2014 at 5:05 pm:
You think a skeptic lost here?
Much like with Barry O’s Iraq policy, you shall find declaring victory and pulling out is not a sustainable strategy. It also lead to endless snickering, and not just behind your back.
Heh. Great job there protecting yourself from the charging rhino by unfurling an umbrella and declaring you’re safe as now its spittle can’t mess up your dress shirt.
richardscourtney,
He is clearly attempting to twist himself into what he thinks is the shortest time frame for the stall. If one were to instead use say RSS, the pause is at 17.5 years. Or even if you just allowed for completely insignificant trend inclusion, GISS would be extended out to roughly 17 years.
Hence pretty much every single agency having admitted the pause/stall is roughly 17 years at this point.
His trying to shrink it down merely shows how desperate he wants it to be short. Might as well just accept it though, nearly everyone else on the planet has (including almost every single high profile alarmist)
…but if one accepts it, then they have to explain how there has been zero warming for nearly 2 decades while CO2 has seen an increase of 10%, or roughly 40% of all the CO2 increase since 1900 over those short 17 years with no warming.
40% of the “dangerous” increase in “poison”, 0% rise. It’s a staggering disconnect that I almost cant blame him for trying to ignore.
Timothy Sorenson says:
February 2, 2014 at 3:30 pm
“Let them blubber about that the ensemble would be incorrect and then make them acknowledge that for the IPCC ensemble mean of models is inappropriate at best and downright fraud from scientists with any math skills.”
Hey, it’s good enough for the world’s finest journalists at the axis of evil NYT-Guardian-Spiegel.