By contrast, the Urban Heat Island Effect is far more evident in summer warming.
In the USA, we have…
Click the image to enlarge it:
(Global Warming theory says winters get warmer.)
A 24 year summer warming trend.
(2011 data to date support a 24 year trend.)
Click the image to enlarge it:
Is the Urban Heat Island Effect more relevant than CO2?
Click here to reproduce each NOAA graph above.
Click here & examine global temperature trends.
Click here for some basic climate change science.
Click here to debunk the hysteria topic by topic.
4 comments:
Why don't you read some actual science?
http://www.springerlink.com/content/j5q0y2vkgmxdmq3t/
http://www.springerlink.com/content/8wm04eqdg1u0calq/
This pair of studies show the difference in trend between summer and winter.
They found that winters have been warming faster than summers.
Try plotting the data yourself - it makes a good graph of the real information that you should have on your page. All the data can be found here;
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/crutem3vnh.txt
Lazarus,
1) Are you suggesting that your fellow alarmists at NOAA do not produce "actual science"? Fascinating! Has NOAA been banished from the holy church of CAGW?
2) You throw at me two studies published in 2002 and 2004 respectively which torture the data until it (allegedly) conforms to expectations and call that convincing?
Didn’t a certain “climate scientist” do something sorta similar in fabricating his infamous Hockey Stick fraud?
Isn’t it amazing what people will do when there’s $100 BILLION in government “research” money and tens of TRILLIONS in government “mitigation” funds just sitting there for the grabbing.
As they say, “follow the money”…
Click here for more details.
It seems that infamous “Climate Scientist” was paid off pretty well for perpetrating his obvious fraud.
3) Allow me to quote more recent observations from the apparently excommunicated souls at NOAA:
“The trend in the ENSO-related component for 1999–2008 is +0.08±0.07°C decade, fully accounting for the overall observed trend. The trend after removing ENSO (the "ENSO-adjusted" trend) is 0.00°±0.05°C decade.”
That’s just the teaser…
Click here to see how that quote fits into the rise and fall of your CAGW religious cult.
"1) Are you suggesting that your fellow alarmists at NOAA do not produce "actual science"?"
They do produce science - and they don't get the conclusions you do - why is that?
"2) You throw at me two studies published in 2002 and 2004 respectively which torture the data until it (allegedly) conforms to expectations and call that convincing?"
Torture the data? It is clear that you don't understand the science or have not read it. Plot the data yourself and the resulting graph is clear.
"As they say, “follow the money”…"
Indeed;
http://lazarus-on.blogspot.com/2011/06/million-dollar-willie.html
"3) Allow me to quote more recent observations from the apparently excommunicated souls at NOAA:"
Why the need to cherry pick? NOAA support the conclusions of the IPCC,
http://www.cpo.noaa.gov/ipcc/first_ipcc.html
A real sceptic would wonder why so little evidence, that has to be tortured and misinterpreted from the main conclusions of qualified scientists, supports their beliefs.
Lazarus,
1) “they don't get the conclusions you do - why is that?”
Um…
Because they’re paid NOT TO?
2) “Follow the money”
Okay, let’s pretend Greenpeace (for once) conducted an objective and credible “investigation” and found energy interests funded some climate science research to the tune of $1 million.
That $1 million amounts to 0.001% of the estimated $100 BILLION in government funding. Can we say David vs. Goliath? MORON!
3) “Why the need to cherry pick? NOAA support the conclusions of the IPCC,
http://www.cpo.noaa.gov/ipcc/first_ipcc.html”
A) Did you read beyond your headline? Your link (from 2007) merely notes that NOAA has:
“made major contributions to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) international climate science report”
There is NOTHING in your link to indicate that anybody at NOAA supports the conclusions of the IPCC bureaucrats - MORON!
B) What? If you find something NOAA publishes to be “inconvenient”, you arbitrarily dismiss it as “cherry picking”? Let’s review that NOAA quote one more time:
“The trend in the ENSO-related component for 1999–2008 is +0.08±0.07°C decade, fully accounting for the overall observed trend. The trend after removing ENSO (the "ENSO-adjusted" trend) is 0.00°±0.05°C decade.”
C) NOAA published a very clear set of circumstances under which they would consider the IPCC computer models to have been invalidated. Phil Jones then (unwittingly) informed the BBC that those very circumstances had been met. Ergo, the IPCC computer models have been invalidated (as have the very most critical underlying assumptions built into those models).
4) Click here and mourn the death of your CAGW cult.
Now, go away! I don’t like wasting my time arguing with cliché spewing mental midgets.
Post a Comment