Your fail to understand my point. You have completely failed to show that climate trends are totally made up.
When you folks blurt out how some local areas impact on global warming, I have the same feeling you have right now.
Why not be honest and say models. We are told that models that get tampered with a lot are accurate. I ask how can that be?
Yes but this is showing the local impacts of global trends. All you have are places that temporarily don't follow the trend.
Ok, Try this.... NOAA 2015 RSS Raw Now compare with... NASA "Pause isn't real" graph... Now. Who produced the warming?
In your first figure you purposely cut out the rising years before and after this trend. My graph includes them. Your second figure assumes that sattelites high up in the atmphere and with numerous sources of error are more reliable than NASA measurements. And even with that sattelite data there is a slight upward trend, even with you purposely putting some unusual high years at the start of your graph to make it look like less warming instead of including more of the 90s which I do. It also doesn't include 2015 and 2015. You are just cherry picking your data to deny the reality.
Total fail. These aren't my graphs. They were all produced by NOAA or NASA. I haven't altered them in any way except to present them here. Of course, you quibble, but your quibble isn't with me as I had nothin to do with their production. Try expressing your concerns to the nice folks at NOAA/NASA et al. I'm sure that your incredulity will be inspiration for them.
So many Democrats, all believe they totally understand the systems covering Earth. I at least, though well educated on climate do not believe I understand it all, or even much of it. But to those sure Earth will burn to a crisp, try ice baths.
Your graph are of their data but cherry pick years to hide the rise. Notice they totally leave out the rises in the late 90s and late 2010s to create the illusion of no warming.
I think that there are high school drop outs who are better experts than Curry and they would definitely have more integrity
A warm up, yes. No Vikings. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/31/new-paper-shows-medieval-warm-period-was-global-in-scope/ New paper shows Medieval Warm Period was global in scope Observed increases in ocean heat content (OHC) and temperature are robust indicators of global warming during the past several decades. We used high-resolution proxy records from sediment cores to extend these observations in the Pacific 10,000 years beyond the instrumental record. We show that water masses linked to North Pacific and Antarctic intermediate waters were warmer by 2.1 ± 0.4°C and 1.5 ± 0.4°C, respectively, during the middle Holocene Thermal Maximum than over the past century. 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. Although documented changes in global surface temperatures during the Holocene and Common era are relatively small, the concomitant changes in OHC are large. The Medieval Climate Optimum is the bane of Global Warming Alarmist. Yes it is. While they attack global warming deniers, they deny the climate change that ended the Dark Ages. Moi r > g Across an immense, unguarded, ethereal border, Canadians, cool and unsympathetic, regard our America with envious eyes and slowly and surely draw their plans against us.
Curry is a known shill for big oil She lost credibility with the rest of academia long long long ago AND She is one of less than a hundred climate scientists out of thousands - and if you do not accept that there are thousands of equally if not more qualified climate scientists out there simply look at the author lists for the IPCC Here are some links to some of her more blatant blunders http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Judith_Curry https://www.skepticalscience.com/Judith_Curry_blog.htm https://thinkprogress.org/judith-curry-abandons-science-e13059a66c99 https://www.desmogblog.com/judith-curry
Sounds like your confusing implementation with the policy. There's nothing wrong and a lot of good to use solar or wind. But you do need to have backup systems.
Just an FYI "Wattsupmybutt" is NOT repeat NOT a peer reviewed academic journal IT is a BLOG Numerous papers in google scholar talk of a disparity between northern and southern hemispheric temperatures - temperatures which were influenced by the position of the Eath within the Milankovitch cycle https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum
I have contributed to wikipedia. I would call it a blog. What's wrong with blogs? Nothing so long as YOU agree. A blogger complaining about blogging, rich in irony.
For a person who shills for the person's favorite sites, to comment like that is so rich, it makes me laugh. You post blogs from blog sites then rip them. Look, we the rational, realize we are tampering with the funding given to your type of people. We know it is about money. We realize why those getting the huge money fight with me and others. We use facts.
Believe what you want. We can make stacks of "scientific papers" and see whose is higher. While discrediting some in the others pile. When I reference Science (not digest or news) it gets ignored or discredited. What cinches the deal for Moi is the corresponding written records of the last couple thousand years. Records of crop harvests, famine, drought, cold. Also the history of civilizations with warm ups and cool downs. And the biological record. What grew there when. That beats CO2 or temperature estimates for Moi. Watch the grapes. So yes Greenland was more pasture like than today but, not warm enough long enough to create forests. The earlier Vikings got most of their dietary protein from pasture animals. That is determined by nitrogen isotope ratios in bones. And wild grapes grew in Canada as the Vikings reported. So while we debate the warm up & Australia, your cohorts argue the Medieval Warm Up wasn't that warm, if it happened at all. They argue for unprecedented warm up today than ever before in the history of people. You see, acknowledging the Medieval Climate Optimum is most painful to Global Warming alarmist. Nothing new here. Move along. Moi r > g Let them grow grapes! Vinland Across an immense, unguarded, ethereal border, Canadians, cool and unsympathetic, regard our America with envious eyes and slowly and surely draw their plans against us.
Perhaps you missed the point then. If as the AGW community has suggested that the explosion of CO2 production is driving the warming, then the empirical data should support it regardless of the time and duration. We should still see it in other words. And because we don't, the point was demonstrating graphically the warming then that NOAA/NASA then detailed after their data manipulation efforts, which the last graph demonstrates. This isn't hard. The observational data doesn't support what the data wizards wanted to see, so they changed the data sets. Let that sink in for a while. Because it is the important part. Nature didn't demonstrate any real warming so the data wizards clearly invented it. It doesn't matter what the duration is. Clearly, this demonstrates the dishonesty of the process and the prognostications. So strawman somewhere else about cherry picked data.
