I would be interested to see what the trend looks like without the 1998 El Niño anomaly year. Does anyone have a link to the raw data site?
I do quote Santer. You just dont like it. The fact is we have reached Santers 17 year mark. In real science this would be falsification. But climate science is not a real science. Actually any field which feels the need to add science to its name usually is not a real science.
You've been challenged on that image several times so far and have been completely unable to defend it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cujoirSratU Watch this video from NASA. You'll see that the ice area goes up and down from year to year. Sometimes you'll even see half a decade where it goes up. But the overall trend remains the same. The poles are losing ice at an alarming rate. So this idea that you can prove thousands upon thousands of peer reviewed studies wrong with a simple picture that spans a mere 1 year then you've got another thing coming. Your position isn't as smart as you think it is.
Genius, woodfortrees.org is the raw data. If you start your trend after the end of the ENSO in 2001, not just the El Nino but the full cycle, the trend goes negative. If you knew how linear trends work you would know why. Its not simply point to point.
Yes things haven't been this bad since the ..... mid 70s. The key to creating the arctic ice scare is to start at 1979 which may well have been the highest of the century.
I said field not institution. Try again! You are reaching because you know I'm right. All of the joke fields like to put science in the name. The real sciences generally don't. They don't have to. The joke fields always have an inferiority complex.
The NASA that works for Obama and whose mission is to raise the self esteem of Muslims? NASA is so so political that its difficult to trust anything the say in defense of the global warming hoax.
I think it's sort of a direction. You know, many types of science involved in out past the wild blue yonder . . . and then some.
Especially when the "melting ice" is a million+ MORE square miles of ARCTIC ICE than a year ago...frozen in the SUMMER of 2013, no less. Veeeery tricky....that "melting ice"....
No its not. If you looked into the article you would see that the first person listed is an astronomer.
A million MORE square miles of Arctic Ice , in SUMMER 2013. The Antarctic Ice has been growing for DECADES= why Warmists try not to bring it up, in their nonstop Chicken Little nonsense.... - - - Updated - - - Unless it is a weather pattern that SUPPORTS WARMIST CLAIMS, it's "just weather". I thought you knew that bit of Warmist Dogma...
The people who claim that sunspots drive temperatures on Earth. No sunspots apparently meant cold weather and lots of sunspots mean warm and sunny
Please explain how the Enlightened Geniuses at Skeptical Science managed to measure solar irradiance in 1900. - - - Updated - - - Yes; your Warmist Blog is much more convincing....
A chart claiming to show MEASURED SOLAR IRRADIANCE from 1900, kind of calls the attention of those of us capable of critical analysis...obviously, you accept such nonsense without question, as all Ant Colony members must...
Is this the EMPIRICAL DATA, or the massaged data? And what SOURCES did they use to collect this information? the proven completely unreliable SURFACE TEMP STATIONS? Nice , pretty colors, but let's see the ACTUAL DATA, please.
Making comparisons about scientific data is one thing, attempting to compare of the abilities of PF members is another.
Wow. Astoundingly astute refutation of the EMPIRICAL TEMPERATURE DATA, revealed by satellite measurement, and detailed in the OP.
