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:
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says: @ur momisugly February 3, 2014 at 12:46 am
From Kyle on February 2, 2014 at 10:02 pm:
In fact, a recent Australian study finds that, similar to the CLOUD study at CERN, that the warming is causing a reduction in cloudiness that points to a higher, rather than lower sensitivity.
You really have no idea what you’re regurgitating, do you? ….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No he does not know what he is talking about.
The IPCC model projections, actuall temperature and CO2 GRAPH OOPS!
From the Big Bear Solar Observatory Project EARHSHINE:
GRAPH showing changes in earth albedo (A measure of the amount of solar radiation that is reflected away)
A more recent Graph from Project EARHSHINE adds a couple more years.
Substantial correlation can be seen between cosmic ray flux variation and cloud cover variation, such as this illustration from Dr. Shaviv’s site, following Marsh & Svensmark 2003. link
The data says:
Cloud/Cosmic Ray hypothesis = 1
CAGW – manmade CO2 conjecture = ZERO
I lived in St Louis in the 90s. The warmist is lying.
Kyle says at February 2, 2014 at 9:49 pm
Ok, on a friendly note please could Kyle provide three simple pieces of supporting information.
1 How do we know it is the PDO to blame and not something else (like, as suggested, clouds)?
2 How do we know the approximate extent that the the PDO accounted for the Late 20th Century Warm Period?
And finally, (but this is simple I’m sure)
3 What actually is the approximate extent that science has determined he PDO accounted for the Late 20th Century Warm Period?
David L says: @ur momisugly February 3, 2014 at 2:59 am
Kadaka, how do you know the deep oceans are warming up? …
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
They do not. If the deep oceans were warming it would have shown up as a change in the ARGO data.
“The warming is hiding in the deep oceans – excuse #4356” is really funny when you think about it because the warmists shoot themselves in the foot again.
CO2 CAN NOT warm the deep oceans. At best it adds a bit of energy th the surface skin of water and helps evaporation. A change in the spectra of the sun is what warms oceans at depth. In other words that excuse is really saying “It’s the Sun what dunit Gov!” (Snicker)
GRAPH Solar radiation wavelengths and intensity at various ocean depths. A second GRAPH showing the whole solar spectrum and the wavelengths that enter the oceans. Note those wavelengths are at the upper end of the spectrum in the UV- vis area and not the lower end (IR)
The variation in the sun’s spectrum:
NASA: SORCE’s Solar Spectral Surprise
NASA: Solar Irradiance changes
(Mods, Anthony might want to explore this idea a bit more.)
Mervyn says:
February 3, 2014 at 12:05 am
“I refer to President Obama’s State of the Union address – Can someone please explain why the most powerful leader in the world, who is determined to halt ‘climate change’, demonstrated his total ignorance of the 17 year pause in global warming ”
Yes. Ganja blocks the transcription of short term memory contents into the long term memory.
Meaning: Even if somebody told him he has no memory of it. He’s a de facto stateless automaton.
We will see this a lot with all the Ganja legalization in Cali and Colorado etc. Wait, we have been seeing it all these years, in leftist hipster warmist Ganja users. THAT’s why they’re immune to data.
Anyone that can make math entertaining gets my attention, and if Randall has dipped his toe into the CAGW debate with this cartoon, I’m confident on which way he’ll _eventually_ look at the data. I can imagine Randall’s take on the temperature adjustment made to the raw data sets, but I’m afraid that will have to wait until other political climate shoes have dropped, so to speak.
Good cartoon, Josh. Randall needs to recognize a sine curve. I wonder what kind of skill set that requires?
I plotted the data Hoser posted above. It does look like the decade 2001-2010 has an exceptionally long run of years with no days below 0F.
http://tinypic.com/r/2z5ivdi/8
Is this data correct? Do other regions exhibit this same anomaly?
Proof of Global Warming? I don’t think so because there are no corresponding record run of hot temperatures for St. Louis in that same decade.
http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/xkcd-and-global-warming-and-st-louis/
Since below 0F weather seems to be associated with arctic polar vortex anomalies, I think the explanation will involve some change in the way these vortices behaved in that decade. (Looks like it getting back to ‘normal’ now.)
I was in St. Louis from roughly 1970 to 1995. The winters were brutal. The talk of global cooling was genuine among serious scientists. The cold, ice and snow were so bad that everyone dreamed of living elsewhere. Many left, not only St. Louis but the entire region. In the Spring of 1978 in Atlanta, the Uhaul company would pay anyone to tow one of their trailers to the midwest.
The point is that the period under discussion should be taken as anomalous and that anyone who claims evidence of global warming based on the change from say 1970 to 2000 is clearly cheating.
I think that Josh captured my thinking correctly. The very facts that are discussed in the cartoon that he criticizes are damning of Warmism.
Sometimes Fundamentals are nice:
Imagine there’s no CO2
I wonder if you can.
we’re all dead!
Make the winters colder — some of us die.
Reduce food production — some of us die.
Desertify (cool and dry, y know) — some of us die.
Raise the temperature a degree or two… move 200 mi north to maintain your personal climate, if it’s such a big deal.
Frankly, “climate change may” has become the new valley girl’s “Like, you know”.
A mindless meaningless phrase inserted into every conversation. And we all know you can’t argue with a valley girl.
I just wish, if it’s getting so much warmer, that my oranges weren’t freezing so often.
Hoser,
I plotted your data in xcel to give people a better visual. It looks pretty close to the cartoon. It’s still irrelevant to global warming, but whatever.
http://i.imgur.com/oGg87AY.jpg
Oops. I see John Day beat me to it. O well.
James Abbott says:
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.
James, GISS so heavily adjusts data sets, that one really looks at trully “anthropogenic” temperatures.
This does not really mean that it is indeed warmer. Such big adjustments have rendered the data of little use. The adjustments are bigger then the signals, Actually the adjustments are the signal, there is no other signal discernable in the dataset due to the adjustments:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/02/03/nasanoaa-have-erased-the-unanimous-cooling-consensus-of-1961/
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/02/02/nasa-has-erased-almost-the-entire-global-cooling-scare/
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/12/23/nasa-cooling-down-the-whole-worlds-past/
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/04/ushcn-surface-temperatures-1973-2012-dramatic-warming-adjustments-noisy-trends/
here about TOBS adjustments:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/18/ushcn-v2-tobs-adjustment-is-double-what-it-is-supposed-to-be/
and many more.
Some adjustments may be justified, some do not look at all justified. Then talk about UHI and data quality – see also Watts 2012
See also here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/29/important-study-on-temperature-adjustments-homogenization-can-lead-to-a-significant-overestimate-of-rising-trends-of-surface-air-temperature/
The theory had always been that Climate Change would effect ENSO (frequency, severity, etc.) but it was always treated as a dependent variable. Now, ENSO is being looked at as a heat buffer and a mechanism for shuttling excess heat to the deep oceans. This is new.
It’s the sanctimoniousness of the Warmists I object to. Constantly claiming the science is settled while simultaneously discovering fundamentally new mechanisms hurts your credibility.
The Warmists have been caught off guard by the Pause. The science is not settled.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) The skepticalscience trend calculator takes the autocorrelation in the data into account, which gives a more realistic indication of the confidence interval of the trend. The larger the autocorrelation, the wide the confidence interval (all things being otherwise equal). The standard ordinarly least squares tren calculation assumes there is no autocorrelation, and hence gives narrower confidence intervals than the SkS trend calculator. This means that the SkS trend calculator will give a longer period with no statistically significant warming. For details of how the trend calculator works, see
http://www.skepticalscience.com/temperature_trend_calculator.html
It is important to bear in mind though that a lack of statistically significant warming does not mean that there has been no warming (that would be an example of the so-called p-value fallacy). Essentially it just means that it hasn’t warmed fast enough to effectively rule out the possibility that there has been no warming. Without evaluating the statistical power of the test (i.e. the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis if it is false), we can’t tell whether that is because it hasn’t actually warmed or because there isn’t enough data to reliably detect the expected warming over a period of that length given the amount of noise in the data.
Kyle on February 2, 2014 at 10:02 pm:
“In fact, a recent Australian study finds that, similar to the CLOUD study at CERN, that the warming is causing a reduction in cloudiness that points to a higher, rather than lower sensitivity.”
False, that is circular reasoning.and the facts are when low clouds are reduced solar penetration increases, energy content increases and temperatures warm as a result. There is no evidence that suggests warming causes reduced cloud cover. It is a typical cause and effect relationship spun around on purpose. It is like saying the blood on somebody’s nose caused the boxer to punch him.
10 years ago alarmists were incorrectly saying that ENSO had no residual affect on global temperatures at all. Were relying on El NInos to show global warming and to be honest still do now. ENSO warms and warms less, only recently that alarmists are cherry picking half of the mechanism that warms less and emit the half than warms more.
James Abbott,
All global data sets including SSTs show a cooling for at least 12.5 years with the exception of UAH. So they more than show just a temporary non warming period, virtually all agree on at least some cooling.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001.5/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001.5/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001.5/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001.5/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2001.5/trend/plot/rss/from:2001.5/trend/plot/uah-land/from:2001.5/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2001.5/trend/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2001.5/trend
Take it up with the authors of the paper. The lead researcher, Kirkby, said unequivocally that their findings are precisely as I described them. You know, the guy and the study that you guys have been heralding for years as the silver bullet to kill the CO2 werewolf.
Just like Anthony’s own years-long attempt to discredit US ground station data was supposed to be vindicated by Muller, you dismiss the results when they don’t go your way. Not very scientific of you.
And so I checked the St Louis Airport data, Lambert that is, and I found no indication that the first cartoon was correct in days below zero.
I found that there were many less than the cartoon indicated.
Anyway to find out the siting issues for this location? And, what have been the adjustments to the data, where colder days are made warmer?
From David L on February 3, 2014 at 2:59 am:
From kadaka (KD Knoebel) on February 2, 2014 at 8:17 pm:
?????
For the info, try that link to Tisdale’s recent “Open Letter” piece.
Love how this is about global warming. People are so oblivious to it so we just leave it alone.
They used to say the missing heat was in the oceans. Now that they found that it is not, they say it is in the arctic. When they find out that that is not the case either, they will say the missing heat is in our coffee
I see that some of you are blissfully charging ahead with the “no warming” meme in spite of the fact that the metric being used represents only 2.3% and that we know there’s been an increase in the nominal 93.4%. What’s wrong? Just can’t process the fact that you’re that far off base? Such dogmatic thinking!
P Wilson – What are you talking about? They have found the heat to be going to the deep ocean. As if there were ever any doubt that the surface cooling of La Nina is at the expense of increased heat flux to the depths. This is elementary logic!
compared to the IPcc projections from over a decade ago when global warming was said to be full steam ahead, even if there was unknown heating in the arctic, the fact remains that the projections back then for now are 95% wrong
Kyle,
Don’t be silly. Show us that global warming.
Take your time…
Kyle:
At February 3, 2014 at 1:51 am I took the trouble to give you some helpful and friendly advice which you clearly needed.
You have not acknowledged that but – instead – you have provided your silly post at February 3, 2014 at 1:28 pm. And that post does everything I told you makes you a laughing stock.
So, I will try to help you again.
If you have a point to make to someone then address them, say your point and explain why you think they are wrong. Arm waving excuses for your inability to defend your assertions are laughable.
“Take it up with the authors” is one such laughable excuse for your inability to defend your assertions. Indeed, that excuse is really, really stupid because the paper is being discussed and is NOT being taken on trust.
Also, assertions about “you guys” merely demonstrate your ignorance of those who read this thread. If you know of somebody or some group that claims something then say who you mean. The people here are individuals and they are not similar to the brainwashed idiots who have attended one of Gore’s alarmism training camps.
Perhaps you are too young to be capable of understanding how to engage in discussion with adults. If so, then I suggest you ‘lurk’ and learn.
However, it may be that you do have sufficient maturity to understand how to engage and you want to be thought a fool. If so, then please do it somewhere else.
This is the second time I have offered you helpful advice. If you cannot understand it then perhaps you should ask a trusted adult to explain it to you.
Richard
I find your first point to be odd. You seem to be implying that rather than the usual tactic of misrepresenting the science, you’re actually prepared to rebut it. The person to whom I response certainly did not; he merely asserted the opposite. Bare assertions of amateurs do not register with me as valid rebuttals of peer reviewed science.
As for your scone point – “you guys” references the term that Anthony uses as an excuse to censor those who accurately characterize “you guys”.
And I’m 55 yrs old and know both the science and the misinformation campaign well. I refute in an often mocking or dismissive manner because “you guys” are undeserving of more respect.
John Day says:
February 3, 2014 at 5:57 am
Is the number of 0 °F ys below 0°C F really exceptional? During the 20s, there was a 9 year (centered) avg min of 1.2 days/yr < 0 °F, and 2 or less for 14 years. During the 50s, the 9 year avg min was 1.0 and the period 2 or less lasted 14 years also. The max all time 9 yr avg was above 6, in a period above 2 lasting 17 yrs. You have to go back to the 1880s to see 9 yr avg values above 5. The point was, the 1980s were unusually cold over the entire temperature record and should not be used as the standard for comparison. The average number of days / yr < 0 °F over the entire temperature record is less than 2.7.
Granted, the 9 yr average min during the 2000s was about 0.1 for one year. How different is that from the 50s?
Consider, much this cold weather in St. Louis during the 80s occurred when "warming" was increasing rapidly.