Climate change: 2015 'shattered' global temperature record by wide margin

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Greven

Any Pause is hidden behind the El Nino.

And you are misquoting the study on the sediments from the Pacific and Antartic Oceans.

FROM THE ABSTRACT:

Both water masses were ~0.9°C warmer during the Medieval Warm period than during the Little Ice Age and ~0.65° warmer than in recent decades.

So if the Pacific and Antartic Oceans were warmer during the MWP then current temperatures, it proves that the MWP was both global in nature AND warmer then current temperatures

Pauses are hidden by El Nino? Curious claim - prove it.

I am not misquoting. You are misreading. The deep ocean waters (by the way, there is no Antarctic Ocean) some 10,000 years ago were very warm. These cooled very, very slowly. By the time of the MWP, it was only ~0.65°C warmer than today. It continued cooling, reaching a low point of ~0.25°C below today. It started warming again.

Like I said, if you disagree, prove it from the paper. That abstract ain't going to cut it, and that editor's summary sure won't.

Uh... But it's snowing outside. Prove that!

originally posted by: gspat

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: Greven

Oh, silly me! It looks like he uses a new data set based on whatever he pulled out of his thin air. Let's compare his new with his old:

Year M v6.0 (diff) v5.6 departure from 1981-2010 baseline in °C
1998 1 0.49 (+.02) 0.47
1998 2 0.67 (+.02) 0.65
1998 3 0.48 (+.06) 0.42
1998 4 0.74 (+.08) 0.66
1998 5 0.64 (+.08) 0.56
1998 6 0.56 (+.05) 0.51
1998 7 0.50 (+.06) 0.44
1998 8 0.51 (+.07) 0.44
1998 9 0.44 (+.11) 0.33
1998 10 0.40 (+.11) 0.29
1998 11 0.12 (+.04) 0.08
1998 12 0.24 (+.05) 0.19
avg: 0.48 (+.06) 0.42

2015 1 0.27 (-.09) 0.36
2015 2 0.17 (-.13) 0.30
2015 3 0.16 (-.09) 0.25
2015 4 0.08 (-.08) 0.16
2015 5 0.28 (-.04) 0.32
2015 6 0.33 (-.02) 0.35
2015 7 0.18 (-.06) 0.24
2015 8 0.27 (-.05) 0.32
2015 9 0.25 (-.13) 0.38
2015 10 0.42 (-.15) 0.57
2015 11 0.33 (-.14) 0.47
2015 12 0.44 (-.11) 0.55
avg: 0.27 (-.09) 0.36

Wow, nice adjustment there Dr. Roy Spencer. Great work fiddling with those algorithms to increase the temperature of 1998 by 14% and decrease the temperature of 2015 by 25%.
Guess the numbers were edging too close between the two!

Try as I might, I don't see much difference between him fudging with algorithms and everyone else doing it either.

Have you looked into why he's doing it that way versus others fudging them the opposite direction?

He's also stated quite clearly that satellites could be off by as much as 0.5°C because of the numerous factors involved in inferring temperature from the measurement of various radiation bands. Thermometers directly measure temperature; satellites do not.

You claim that others are fudging numbers in the opposite direction from Dr. Spencer. Prove it.

a reply to: Greven

Just for Greven

web.stanford.edu...

The three centuries beginning with the eleventh, during which the climate became distinctly more benign, witnessed a profound revolution which, by the late 1200s had transformed the landscape into an economy filled with merchants, vibrant towns and great fairs. Crop failures became less frequent; new territories were brought under control. With a more clement climate and a more reliable food supply, the population mushroomed.

The historian Charles Van Doren claimed that: "the ... three centuries, from about 1000 to about 1300, became one of the most optimistic, prosperous, and progressive periods in European history." All across Europe, the population went on an unparalleled building spree, erecting at huge cost spectacular cathedrals and public edifices. Ponderous Romanesque churches gave way to soaring Gothic cathedrals. Virtually all the magnificent religious shrines that we visit in awe today were started by the optimistic populations of the eleventh through the thirteenth centuries, although many remained unfinished for centuries.

Throughout the continent, economic activity blossomed. Banking, insurance, and finance developed; a money economy became well entrenched; manufacturing of textiles expanded to levels never seen before. Farmers in medieval England launched a thriving wine industry. Good wines demand warm springs free of frosts, substantial summer warmth and sunshine without too much rain, and sunny days in the fall. Winters cannot dip below zero Fahrenheit for any significant period. The northern limit for grapes during the Middle Ages was about 300 miles above the current commercial wine areas in France and Germany.

The medieval warm period, which started a century earlier in Asia, benefited the rest of the globe as well. From the ninth through the thirteenth centuries, farming spread into northern portions of Russia. In the Far East, Chinese and Japanese farmers migrated north into Manchuria, the Amur Valley and northern Japan. The Vikings founded colonies in Iceland and Greenland, then actually green. Scandinavian seafarers discovered "Vinland" along the East Coast of North America.

MWP may have been in the Dark Ages but it was a prosperous time for man.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: Greven

I am not buying a paper just for you

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

You don't have to.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Greven

Just for Greven

web.stanford.edu...

The three centuries beginning with the eleventh, during which the climate became distinctly more benign, witnessed a profound revolution which, by the late 1200s had transformed the landscape into an economy filled with merchants, vibrant towns and great fairs. Crop failures became less frequent; new territories were brought under control. With a more clement climate and a more reliable food supply, the population mushroomed.

The historian Charles Van Doren claimed that: "the ... three centuries, from about 1000 to about 1300, became one of the most optimistic, prosperous, and progressive periods in European history." All across Europe, the population went on an unparalleled building spree, erecting at huge cost spectacular cathedrals and public edifices. Ponderous Romanesque churches gave way to soaring Gothic cathedrals. Virtually all the magnificent religious shrines that we visit in awe today were started by the optimistic populations of the eleventh through the thirteenth centuries, although many remained unfinished for centuries.

Throughout the continent, economic activity blossomed. Banking, insurance, and finance developed; a money economy became well entrenched; manufacturing of textiles expanded to levels never seen before. Farmers in medieval England launched a thriving wine industry. Good wines demand warm springs free of frosts, substantial summer warmth and sunshine without too much rain, and sunny days in the fall. Winters cannot dip below zero Fahrenheit for any significant period. The northern limit for grapes during the Middle Ages was about 300 miles above the current commercial wine areas in France and Germany.

The medieval warm period, which started a century earlier in Asia, benefited the rest of the globe as well. From the ninth through the thirteenth centuries, farming spread into northern portions of Russia. In the Far East, Chinese and Japanese farmers migrated north into Manchuria, the Amur Valley and northern Japan. The Vikings founded colonies in Iceland and Greenland, then actually green. Scandinavian seafarers discovered "Vinland" along the East Coast of North America.

MWP may have been in the Dark Ages but it was a prosperous time for man.

Tired of Control Freaks

Oh, good. Citing a 1995 historical article written by a then-tobacco industry economist and later lukewarmer Thomas Gale Moore.

Forgive me if I don't take his words at face value when his predictions weren't borne out by reality.

originally posted by: Royal76
a reply to: johnb

This is complete BS, there is no Global Warming, the Earth has survived so many cycles just like this. Whatever carbon we emit has no baring on this.

How the hell do people like you get stars, when it is obvious that you can hardly fashion a sentence, let alone spell.

For fox sake, kill me now.

The satellite data is adjusted to collaborate with surface readings which in turn have been adjusted to show warming trends where none exist. Just one example is Central Park Temperature which has been adjusted to remove the heat waves of the 1930's so people think todays temperatures are equivalent to temperatures in the 1930's that killed thousands nationwide.

Its a total sham which borders on lunacy. Anyone that is gullible to believe the crock must also believe US unemployment is 5% and US yearly inflation rate is only 0.7%

Washington 1930 ....
July 19 – 102°F
July 20 – 106°F
July 21 – 103°F
July 22 – 100°F
July 23 – 94°F
July 24 – 93°F
July 25 – 100°F
July 26 – 100°F
August 2 – 94°F
August 3 – 100°F
August 4 – 102°F
August 5 – 102°F
August 6 – 88°F
August 7 – 97°F
August 8 – 104°F
August 9 – 102°F

Early versions of atmospheric temperature data sets from satellites suggested that the lower atmosphere had warmed little if at all since 1978 (blue line). Newer versions (green and orange lines) show a warming trend that is similar to the warming measured at the Earth's surface

Satellite Data Modifications

a reply to: glend

The satellite data is adjusted to collaborate with surface readings which in turn have been adjusted to show warming trends where none exist.

Really? You think Spencer is in on it? Seems you liked his data previously. What happened to change your mind? He's showing a change of 0.74º since 1979. That's 0.2º/decade. Feel free to cherry pick...again.

Contrary to some reports, the satellite measurements are not calibrated in any way with the global surface-based thermometer records of temperature.

www.drroyspencer.com...

Just one example is Central Park Temperature which has been adjusted to remove the heat waves of the 1930's so people think todays temperatures are equivalent to temperatures in the 1930's that killed thousands nationwide.

Please explain. You say that heat waves were "hidden" by adjustments. Your source shows a chart with "unadjusted" data which shows an average temperature in Central Park of about 77º. Are you saying that is a heat wave?

Why are you showing data from Washington when talking about Central Park?

But as far as the temperature adjustments go, there have been just as many in both directions.
cdn.factcheck.org...

a reply to: glend

What is crock, is how some will cherry pick data points that side with their confirmation bias.

A heat wave in Washington in the 1930's by no means proves it was warmer on this planet in the 1930's.

a reply to: jrod

A heat wave in Washington in the 1930's by no means proves it was warmer on this planet in the 1930's.

By tampering with historic data sets there is no longer an average to determine if the earth has entered a cooling or warming phase.

a reply to: johnb

Under the global warming agenda anything going on with the weather in the last 100 years will be propagandized is "record breaking" regardless of the fact that earth is been around for billions of years before men was even thought about, let no forget collecting clima data.

a reply to: glend

By tampering with historic data sets there is no longer an average to determine if the earth has entered a cooling or warming phase.

The historic data sets are available. Your own source referred to them and I have made use of them from time to time.

a reply to: marg6043

Under the global warming agenda anything going on with the weather in the last 100 years will be propagandized is "record breaking" regardless of the fact that earth is been around for billions of years before men was even thought about, let no forget collecting clima data.

Um. Records are being broken. That's the point.

I guess saying that someone broke a high jump record doesn't mean anything either. Since people have been jumping over stuff for a long time.

The satellite data is adjusted to collaborate with surface readings which in turn have been adjusted to show warming trends where none exist.


Really? You think Spencer is in on it? Seems you liked his data previously. What happened to change your mind? He's showing a change of 0.74º since 1979. That's 0.2º/decade. Feel free to cherry pick...again.

Let me make it clearer for you phage, "Early versions of atmospheric temperature data sets from satellites suggested that the lower atmosphere had warmed little if at all since 1978 (blue line)" . That is an admission from NASA so why am I cherry picking when I am just reporting what NASA has admitted.

If you don't like the message don't attack the messenger, Get a grip on yourself.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: marg6043

Under the global warming agenda anything going on with the weather in the last 100 years will be propagandized is "record breaking" regardless of the fact that earth is been around for billions of years before men was even thought about, let no forget collecting clima data.

Um. Records are being broken. That's the point.

I guess saying that someone broke a high jump record doesn't mean anything either. Since people have been jumping over stuff for a long time.

A heartbeat in ones life does not tell the health of the heart.

a reply to: glend

You have moved the goalpost.
You claimed: "The satellite data is adjusted to collaborate with surface readings."

That link does not not supported that claim.
Roy Spencer does his own adjustments of data. He does not support your claim, he specifically refutes it. You have cited him in the past as evidence of "no warming." You now disregard him. Why?

Why did you an article about adjusting temperatures in Central Park and say something about a heat wave in Washington?

a reply to: Phage

The historic data sets are available. Your own source referred to them and I have made use of them from time to time.

UAD version D from NASA observations show no warming to 2002 when it ended so where is the raw data that you claim show warming?

a reply to: glend

UAD version D from NASA observations show no warming to 2002 when it ended so where is the raw data that you claim show warming?

As has been pointed out to you on several occassions, there is no "raw data" for satellite derived temperatures.

And, once again, UAH (University of Alabama, Huntsville) version D come from Roy Spencer, not NASA.

He has improved his model (he is now at V6.0) because it was known the first one was useless. You liked him when you thought he supported you, now you don't? Why?