Global Cooling in 2009 (375 Sources)

Does PopTech really think this makes a difference, or does his ego just need a boost?

Still warm at the North Pole:
N_timeseries.png
 
Last edited:
TShaitanaku said:
Yeah, what's with that, its one thing to misrepresent data and graphs but to outright manufacture fraudulent data and misrepresent it as official data, just seems like an offense that deserves more than a head shake and exposure.
Click to expand...
Sorry but only official NCDC data was used. The graph is 100% real.

a_unique_person said:
Australia had a very hot year, and some of the warmest months on record.
Click to expand...
2009 - Coldest day since 1953 (The Cairns Post, Australia, March 31, 2009)
2009 - New Australian continent wide low temperature record set for April (Watts Up With That?, April 29, 2009)
2009 - Australian Ski Resort has it's earliest start to the season in the resort's 45-year history (ABC News, Australia, April 30, 2009)
2009 - Melbourne shivers through coldest April in 60 years (Herald Sun, Australia, April 30, 2009)
2009 - Record cold hits Far North breaks 113 year record in the Cooktown region (The Cairns Post, Australia, May 23, 2009)
2009 - Red Centre shivers in record cold (ABC News, Australia, June 1, 2009)
2009 - Coldest day for 43 years (The Australian, June 13, 2009)
 
theprestige said:
Well, if mainstream climate science models computed in the late 90s predicted a steady rise in temperatures over the following ten years, it might be interesting to compare actual measurements over those ten years to the model predictions.
Click to expand...

Trend Analysis of Satellite Global Temperature Data (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Number 7, pp. 1087-1098, November 2009)
- Craig Loehle
Analysis of the satellite data shows a statistically significant cooling trend for the past 12 to 13 years, with it not being possible to reject a flat trend (0 slope) for 16 years. This is a length of time at which disagreement with climate models can no longer be attributed to simple LTP. On the other hand, studies cited herein have documented a 50-70 year cycle of climate oscillations overlaid on a simple linear warming trend since the mid-1800s and have used this model to forecast cooling beginning between 2001 and 2010, a prediction that seems to be upheld by the satellite and ocean heat content data. Other studies made this same prediction of transition to cooling based on solar activity indices or from ocean circulation regime changes. In contrast, the climate models predict the recent flat to cooling trend only as a rare stochastic event. The linear warming trend in these models that is obtained by subtracting the 60-70 yr cycle, while unexplained at present, is clearly inconsistent with climate model predictions because it begins too soon (before greenhouse gases were elevated) and does not accelerate as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate. This model and the empirical evidence for recent cooling thus provide a challenge to climate model accuracy.
Click to expand...
So much for the models. Though Gavin will make sure to make the necessary "adjustments".
 
Why do all the "believers" rush to bash anyone who disagrees with them??? Why are people who disagree called "deniers"? It's almost like saying Jesus is not real and all the "believers" come rushing in to repel the attack of the deniers.

Someones data could be wrong. The only one whose data has been shown to have been tampered with is the "believers" data.

In my life I have seen predictions of impending ice age and firestorms. I think I will be a skeptic on this issue. I have yet to be convinced. Yes the "believers" will now call me a "denier". I can live with that.





paximperium said:

Strange. I can use NCDC graph maker as well!!!
[qimg]http://climvis.ncdc.noaa.gov/tmp/graph-Jan418:04:482144470214.gif[/qimg]

Everyone go here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/cag3.html
and play!!! Make up your own graph!!!
​
Click to expand...

So you admit you changed the data? Now you are just like the "climategate" people.
 
Last edited:
The Painter said:
Why do all the "believers" rush to bash anyone who disagrees with them??? Why are people who disagree called "deniers"? It's almost like saying Jesus is not real and all the "believers" come rushing in to repel the attack of the deniers.

Someones data could be wrong. The only one whose data has been shown to have been tampered with is the "believers" data.

In my life I have seen predictions of impending ice age and firestorms. I think I will be a skeptic on this issue. I have yet to be convinced. Yes the "believers" will now call me a "denier". I can live with that.

So you admit you changed the data? Now you are just like the "climategate" people.
Click to expand...
Where were the "firestorms" predictions? Nuclear? But let me add to that: Y2K, one kinda flu, another kinda flu, and yet another kinda flu, and the last go round of Global Cooling.

It's time for the KoolAid Warmer crowd to get on the Global Kooling bandwagon! There's still time, get in the game early. Be the first on your block to shrilly proclaim a New Belief!
 
paximperium said:
Strange. I can use NCDC graph maker as well!!!
Click to expand...

It's a strange graph all right. A subtle negative trend from 1980 to 1997, a massive step change then a subtle negative trend after that.

Not at all like other graphs from that period. What is this - US surface temps?
 
Well, if you are predictng future trends, shouldn't you weight the the current data heavier than say 200 year old data? The last decade rather than the 1930s?

IF there is going to be a cooling trend as part of the normal non-A cycle, then it has to start at the warmest year, doesn't it?

I don't recall anybody saying the "warming is over" in 2000. But a decade later? Now it seems reasonable to me.

Well warmers, don't you have to at least admit to a leveling off?

Off course, now you'll move the goal posts with the claim that the temp is not up, but the "overall heat content in terra calories" is....
 
casebro said:
....now you'll move the goal posts with the claim that the temp is not up, but the "overall heat content in terra calories" is....
Click to expand...
Rats. I was kind of hoping it'd be "But the hockey stick Is Real!"
 
BenBurch said:
It would appear that is not the same data set at all.
Click to expand...
150% guaranteed it is the NCDC dataset. Pax cropped the top of his graph to hide the decline difference.

casebro said:
Off course, now you'll move the goal posts with the claim that the temp is not up, but the "overall heat content in terra calories" is....
Click to expand...
What else would you expect from 21st century cooling deniers?
 
Last edited:
casebro said:
Well, if you are predictng future trends, shouldn't you weight the the current data heavier than say 200 year old data? The last decade rather than the 1930s?
Click to expand...

No. The significance of the data is in the average trend, not in any weighted scenario. You have to always justify weighting, and in these scenarios we want to know what is happening, not what is predicted to happen next, which may be one possible (but implausible) reason to weight recent temps higher.

IF there is going to be a cooling trend as part of the normal non-A cycle, then it has to start at the warmest year, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

No. Trends are trends. I am not a stat person (though I've had plenty of stochastic process courses) but you don't start trends at anomalous data points, and 1998 is one of those. As a matter of fact, a linear trend is a foolish idea in any case, because the processes are likely much more complicated than linear, but I'm not sure what is more appropriate; perhaps simply smoothing is more appropriate.

I don't recall anybody saying the "warming is over" in 2000. But a decade later? Now it seems reasonable to me.

Well warmers, don't you have to at least admit to a leveling off?
Click to expand...

Over the last ten years, perhaps, but again that is an average, and there are reasons for it (having to do with the sun and El/La Ninx.

Off course, now you'll move the goal posts with the claim that the temp is not up, but the "overall heat content in terra calories" is....
Click to expand...

That's certainly off course, as you say. Did you see the graph above concerning ice melting? I don't see that slowing down (and, of course, I wouldn't expect to, not for quite a while longer, and only if your cooler's "leveling off" continues, say, another 30 or 40 years).
 
Poptech said:
In the words of Ben Santer,

"I see no reason why I should do your work for you, and provide you with... which you can easily compute yourself."
Click to expand...

Sure, OK. We know you aren't in search of the truth anyway, so that figures.
 
Poptech said:
In the words of Ben Santer,

"I see no reason why I should do your work for you, and provide you with... which you can easily compute yourself."
Click to expand...

Your lies, your obligation to support

properly support your assertions or acknowledge that they are the bung clingings they appear to be.
 
Poptech said:
150% guaranteed it is the NCDC dataset. Pax cropped the top of his graph to hide the decline difference.
Click to expand...

Actually, paximperium ended his/her graph at 2008, which was cooler than 2009. If paximperium was trying to "hide the decline", why did he/she not including a year that was warmer than the previous year?

Anyway, is there a reason why you are drawing your conclusion based on US data rather than global data?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom